HomeMy WebLinkAbout1998-08-19; Planning Commission; Resolution 4341e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
33
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4341
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA APPROVING A
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLA.RATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO GRADE
AND SUBDIVIDE 35.37 ACRES INTO 30 LOTS ON
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE
WEST SIDE OF RANCHO SANTA FE ROAD BETWEEN
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1 1.
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
CASE NO.: CT 98-O2/SUP 98-01/HDP 98-01
WHEREAS, Colina Roble, LLC. “Developer”, has filed a verified apl
with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Wiegand Properties Part]
“Owner”, described as
OLIVENHAIN ROAD AND CALLE ACERVO IN LOCAL
A portion of Lot 13 of the Subdivision of Rancho Las
Encinitas, in the City of Carlsbacl, County of San Diego, State
of California, according to map thereof No. 848, filed in the
office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, on June
27,1898
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 19th day of August, 19
a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law ‘to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
LL II
23
24
25
26
27
28
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the I
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the F
Commission hereby APPROVES ;:he Mitigated Negative Declaration ac
e 0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
to Exhibit "ND" dated, April 27, 1998, "PII" dated, March 18, 1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and
part hereof, based on the following findings and subject to the f
condition:
Findings:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy
considered the Mitigated Negative Dechation, the environmental impacts
identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Monito
Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department. Based on the EIA Pa
comments thereon, the Planning Commission finds that there is no substantial I
the project will have a significant effect on the environment and hereby APPRO
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declar:
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in accorda
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad.
3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration refl
independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad.
4. The Planning Commission finds that all feasible mitigation measures or
alternatives identified in the MEIR 93-01 which are appropriate to this Sul
Project have been incorporated into this Subsequent Project.
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Colina Rob16
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, dated August 19,1998.
...
...
... I
I II ... 25
26
27
28
...
...
PC RES0 NO. 4341 -2-
e e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the 1
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 19th day of August, 199s
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Noble, Commissioners Compas, Heineman, M
Nielsen, Savary, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
BAILEY NOBI&, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
PC RES0 NO. 4341 -3-
0 0
- C-ity of Carlsbac
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddressLocation: APN: 255-040-55, East side of Rancho Santa Fe Road south
Olivenhain Road, City of Carlsbad, San Diego County, Californi,
Project Description: A proposed 30 lod28 unit residential subdivision with minimu
lot sizes of 10,000 sq.fi. an a 35 acre parcel located south of t
southwest corner of Rancho Santa Fe Road and Olivenhain ROE
The project includes 14.8 acre and 8.8 acre open space lots
protect the site’s wetland, oak woodland, and chaparral habit
The project also includes grading to accommodate a public trail
public cul-de-sac street, limited frontage improvements alo
Rancho Santa Fe Road, and utility and drainage improvements
support the residential development.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described proje
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ar
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review.
Negative Declaration (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on tl
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in tl
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Plannir
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the pubiic a~
invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of da
of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
DATED: APRIL 27,1998
CASE NO: CT 98-02/SUP 98-0 1 /HDP 98-0 1
CASE NAME: COLINA ROBLE
8
PUBLISH DATE: APRIL 27, 1998
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. .* Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 * FAX (760) 438-08:
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: CT 98-02/SUP 98-01/HDP 98-
DATE: MARCH 18-19
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Colina Roble
2. APPLICANT: Colina Roble. LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3573 East Sunrise Drive #221. Tucs 7
AZ. 85718 (520) 229-2179
4. DATE E1.A FORM PART I SUBMITTED: January 2 1, 1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A proposed 30 lot/28 unit residential subdivision with minimum 1
sizes of 10,000 sq.fi. on a 35 acre parcel located south of the southwest comer of Rancho San
Fe Road and Olivenhain Road. The project includes 14.8 acre and 8.8 acre open space lots
protect the site’s wetland, oak woodland, and chaparral habitat. The project also includ
grading to accommodate a public trail, a public cul-de-sac street, limited frontage improvemen
along Rancho Santa Fe Road, and utility and drainage improvements to support the residenti
development.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projec
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant lmpal
Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning 0 Transportation/Circulation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
0 Water Hazards Cultural Resources
[x1 Air Quality @ Noise [23 Recreation
B Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
0 DETERMINATION. e
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on I
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
IXI I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on t
environment, there will not be a significant effkct in this case because the mitigatil
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATII
DECLARATION will be prepared.
0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment. and
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment. but
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earli
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatic
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Negatil
Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
0 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on tl
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Negative Declaratic
pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to th
earlier Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are impose
upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
-3. & AofJ z-z ~ ITps
Planner Signature-/ Date
&3/9 63
Planning Directoys’ Sigddure Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
e e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES. Chapter 3. Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the C
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a signific
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the follow
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical. biological and hur
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Negat
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
e A brief explanation is required for all answers; except “No Impact’‘ answers that
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following ea question. A “NO Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informati
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved.
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to.
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
e “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that 1
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
e “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporati
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” tc
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation. and t
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce t.
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that :
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed proje:ct could have a potentially significa
effect on the environment, but glJ potentially sig;nificant effects (a) have been analyzt
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigate
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upc
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to (
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pric
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no addition
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
e When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily require
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has bee:n analyzed adequately in an earlier EI:
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement c
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence ths
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects. the City may avoid preparinf
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant. ~
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In .
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation lncorporat
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
e An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked. and includ
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect :
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards. :
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tl
significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the signifxant impact
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not red
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is I
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect.
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially signific
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attent:
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determir
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
lssues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:.
a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over
the project?(Ref. 3)
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g.
impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
incompatible land uses?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)?
0
0
0
Potentiall!. 1.e~ lhan NI
Sifnificant Signif-icant imp
Mitigation
lncorporated
Unless Impact
0 o iz 0 E
0 UB
E
0 0 &
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (Ref. 1 ,P4-5) 0 0 0 [xi
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an 0 0 0 Ixi
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? (Ref. 1)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? El 0 0 Ixi
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (Ref.2. P. 5-22)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (Ref.', P. 5-22)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (Ref.?, P. 5-
e) Landslides or mudflows? (Ref.?, P. 5-22)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
(Ref.2, P. 5-22)
' , (Ref.2 , P. 5-22)
22 1
g) Subsidence of the land? (Ref.2. P. 5-22)
h) Expansive soils? (Ref.2. P. 5-22)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (Ref.2, P. 5-
'2)
0 0 0
0
0 0
0 0 0
0
0
0
O 0
o 0 0
0
Ixl
0 o rz
El w 0
IXI w 0
[x1
IXI 0
Ixi
[x]
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
the rate and amount of surface runoff? 0 0 IXI o
hazards such as flooding? (Ref.6) I7 o [x]
5 Rev. 03/28/96
e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
:Significant
Impact
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of
water movements?
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?(Ref.3)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater?(Ref.3)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for public water
supplies?(Ref.3)
0
0.
0
0
0 0
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants?
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or
existing or projected air quality violation? (Ref. 3) El
0 0 cause any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp 0
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible 0
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
uses? 0 c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0'
0
0
CI
0
0
0
0 0
0
Less Than Signiticanr
Impact
Ix1
IXI
0
0
0
0 0
0
Ix1
0
kc
Imp:
!x
CI
0
121;
[XI
IE3
[XI
0
!XI !XI
IXI
o w
IXI
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? n n n m U U u .v\I e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? n n n m
f> Conflicts with adopted policies supporting U U U u
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, 0 0 0 [XI
bicycle racks)?
g) Rail. waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 [XI
VI]. 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, 0 IXI 0 CI
insects. animals, and birds? (Ref. 43))
b) Locally designated species (eg heritage trees)?) 0 0 0 w
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0 - Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Locally designated natural communities (eg. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (Ref.
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (Ref. 43)
pool)? (Ref. 43)
495)
0
Potentially Potentiail?
Significant Significant
Impact ljnless
Mitigation
incorporated
0 [XI
0 IXI
CI 13
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known
0
inefficient manner? 0 0
mineral resource that would be of future value to 0 0
the region and the residents of the State?
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)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation plan? .
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazards?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees?
0
0
0
O o
0
0
0
0
O
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (Ref. 7) 0 o 0 IXI
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?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other governmental services?
0 0 0 0 0. 0 0 0 0 0
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?
b) Communications systems? 0 0 0 0
7
Less Than XI
Significant Imp
Impact
0 C
0 c
n E
0 E 0 E
0 E
IX
0 IXI
0 IXI w
Ix1
0 [x1 0 0
0 w 0 IXI 13 IXI 0 (XI 13 IXI
0 IXI 0 IXI
Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
lmpact
e) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? 0
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f, Solid wasre disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
0 0 U 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Wave a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? )
c) Create light or glare?
0 0
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (Ref. 8)
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
0 0
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 0
potential impact area? CI
Potentiall!.
Significanr
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
0
U 0
0 CI
0 0 0
Ix1
0
0
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
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?(Ref.
4s)
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
pro-jects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?(Ref. 3)
cl 0
0 cl
0 ixI
Ixl lJ
8
Less lhan Sc,
Significant Imp;
Impacr
cl E
0 (XI 0 w
0 !x 0 E
cl El 0 1xI cl El
0 0
(XI 0 (XI 0 El
0 (XI
0 w
0 IxI
cl CI
0
Rev. 03/28/96
e * lssues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentiall!. Potentiall\ Less 7'han 50
Significant Significant Significml Impa
-
Impact Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 €3
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEC
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negati
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify t
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availab
for review. MEIR for the 1994 General Plan Update, on file in the PlanniI
Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checkli
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursua
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed t
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Overriding Findings 4
Consideration were adopted for air quality and cumulative circulatio
impacts as part of the MEIR for the 19914 General Plan Update. The projec
is consistent with the General Plan.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatio
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated (
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address sitt
specific conditions for the project. N/A
9 Rev. 03/28/96
m e ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project site is approximately 35 acres in size and is located directly West of Rancho Sam
Road. The Encinitas Creek flows through the central portion of the property and the along
southern portion of the site there are hillsides. The site‘s topography ranges in elevation frl
approximately 102 feet above sea level in the lowland portion of the property to 224 feet ab(
sea level in the upland area to the southl. The parcel also contains riparian. coast live (
woodland, and chaparral habitat. The site’s geology consists of dense clayey-si\t\- fine 5
topsoil, medium dense-silty fine sand colluviumlslopewash, fine to medium sand to sandy c;
alluvium, Tertiary-aged Torrey Sandstone, and Tertiary-aged Delmar Formation.
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATIOPJ
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING
The project site is designated Residential Low Medium (RLM) in the Carlsbad General Plan (C
d.u. per acre acre) and zoned R-1-10,000. The proposed 28 unit single-family resident
subdivision yields a project density of 1.54 d.u. per acre and would be consistent with the
designations. The surrounding development consists off single-family homes to the west a
south, open space and Encinitas Creek (wetland habitat) to the north. and Rancho Santa Fe Ro;
to the east. The proposed 10,000 sq. ft., single-family lots would be compatible with tl
surrounding single-family development. The site is not being used for agricultural purposes a1
the closest agricultural operation (cattle grazing) in the area is located directly east of Rand
Santa Fe Road. The project implements the General Plan and does not disrupt or divide tl
physical arrangement of the existing community.
I1 POPULATION AND HOUSING
b) The project site is an undeveloped remnant of land surrounded by existing developmer
All offsite infrastructure is in place. This “infill‘” proposal would, therefore. not induc
growth into the area.
c) The site is vacant. Development would not displace any existing housing.
IV. WATER
a-e) The project site is located adjacent ’to Encinitas Creek. The development of the single
family land use, including the cul-de-sac street. driveways, patios and roof area would a1
result in somewhat more impervious surfaces and increased runoff from the site. Chapte
15.12 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code requires that development utilize best managemer
practices to prevent pollutants from entering storm water conveyance systems b
complying with all applicable provisions of local ordinances and the National Pollutan
Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm Water Discharges.
There is no development proposed in the Encinitas Creek floodway, however, thl
proposed development is located in the floodplain adjoining the floodway. The project’
floodplain impact analysis prepared by Dr. Howard H. Chang, dated February 27 1998
indicates that the proposed grading and filling in the Encinitas Creek floodplain w ulc
not significantly impact the floodway, the storage capacity of the existing detention asir
10 Rev. 03/28/96 P
a e ”D‘.. and would not result in additional exposure to risk of on-site or off-site floodi
from a 100 year flood. The proposed elevation of the residential building pads and str
would be above the 100 year flood level. In addition, the project would not significan
change the direction of surface water movement or ground water flow. and. therefc
would not affect adjoining properties. All the project’s drainage would still flow towar
Encinitas Creek.
Groundwater is present on the site. The quantity of groundwater underlying the site
limited and the aquifer is not utilized for potable drinking water, therefore. any potent
project impacts are not considered significant.
V. AIR QUALITY
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in t
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumpti1
and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission
.carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur. and suspend
particulates. These aerosols are the major contriblutors to air pollution in the City as w8
as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainme
basin”, any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: theref01
continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will ha
cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout.
variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These includ
1) provisions for roadway and intersection imp~rovements prior to or concurrent wil
development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation (
Congestion and Transportation Demand Manalgement; 3) provisions to encourai
alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions 1
promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional grow
management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan a
quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project c
are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the projec
is located within a “non-attainment basin”. therefore, the “Initial Study’‘ checklist j
marked ”Potentially Significant Impact”. This :project is consistent with the Gener:
Plan. therefore, the preparation of an EIR is nclt required because the certification c
Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statemen
Of Overriding Considerations” for air quality im:pacts. This “Statement Of Overridin;
Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s Finz
Master EIR. including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of ai
quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department.
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION
b-e) Access to the project site is constrained by existing development to the west, wetland:
and Encinitas Creek to the north, and steep topography and existing development to thl
south, therefore, the developer is requesting a Engineering standards variance for thc
11 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
f-SI
length of the public street. The cul-de-sac street would be constructed to full public stre
standards including drainage and sewer facilities, curb, gutter and sidewalks. Access
the site is from Rancho Santa Fe Road. Due to tht: close spacing of existing and propost
intersections along this portion of Rancho Santa Fe Road the developer is also requestil
a Engineering standards variance for intersection spacing. For safety, adequate line I
sight at the egress point (cul-de-sac street & Rancho Santa Fe Road) would be maintaint
to assure the ability of drivers to see pedestrians, bicyclists, and other: vehicles clearly.
While the project's small size doesn't lend itself to opportunities to implement maj
transportation improvements, the developer will be responsible for the widening a.
frontage improvements along the west side of Rancho Santa Fe Road. At this time tl
developer is requesting that the improvements be deferred in the form of a futul
improvement agreement. 'The project would not conflict with adopted policies fi
alternative transportation strategies or for adopted plans for rail, waterborne. or air traff
transportation.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
The project site was field surveyed for sensitive and endhgered biological species and natur:
habitat communities. The resources were mapped by Mooney & Associates as part of th
project's Wetland Delineation Report, dated May 1997 and a letter report dated December 199:
The project would result in the following impacts to onsite biological resources:
a) 0.04 acre impact to southern mixed chaparral;
b) 0.74 acre impact to wetlands;
c) Elimination of one (1) coastal live oak.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and coastal live oak are considered significant impacts. an(
both require mitigation to reduce the impacts to less than significant. Significant impacts to thc
southern mixed chaparral would be offset by the preservation of the remaining chaparral habita
in the 8.4 acre open space lot (Lot ## 29). Mitigation for the loss of any wetland is recommendec
at a 2:l ratio and the wetland should be restored throug,h onsite replanting and enhancement
based on the recommendations contained in the Mooney & Associates biological letter reporl
dated December 1997, and a final mitigation plan approwd by the resources agencies as part oi
the Federal and State permits. Mitigation for the loss of the coastal live oak is recommended
through a replacement (34 inch box specimen) planting program at a 3: 1 ratio. The oak woodland
mitigation should take place in the existing oak woodland area located in the southern uplanc
portion of the site.
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES
a) Consistent with Title 24 regulations of the State Building Code, the future homes will be
designed to incorporate energy conservation measures where feasible. Otherwise the
project doesn't conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
a 0
b) No non-renewable resources have been identified with the site. Therefo
implementation of the proposed project would not result in the wasteful use of a nc
renewable resource.
c) The subject site does not have any known resources (natural gas. oil. coal. sand or gravc
that would be of significant value to the region and the residents of the State.
IX. HAZARDS
a-d) Aside from short-term air quality impacts and potential hazards associated with du:
vehicle emissions, and certain materials (paintl fuels, lubricants, solvents) during gradir
and construction activities, the proposed project .would not result in a significant risk
hazard to residents of the neighborhood. No re:portable quantities of listed hazard0
materials will be maintained onsite following completion of construction. There are 1
existing hazards (example - aviation flight activities, manufacturing processes) associatl
with the site or the neighborhood.
e) There will be no increase in fire hazards. The Inanufactured slope along the southel
portion of the lots, and the wetland buffer area along the north will serve as the require
fire suppression zones and be kept clear of high fuel native habitat. The oak woodlanl
riparian habitat, and southern mixed chaparral could, in dry weather conditions, prese~
wildland fire hazard in the area. However, the project will not exacerbate the existir.
potential for fire hazard, and may even reduce it as there would be some amount c
landscaping irrigation to keep the slopes green during dry weather conditions.
X. NOISE
a-b) Temporary construction activities will be required to comply with the City’s Constructio.
Noise Ordinance (Chapter 8.48 of the Municipd Code). Otherwise, the pro-ject wil
generate only the normal amount of noise associated with residences (i.e. barking dog:
screaming children, garden power equipment, etc.).
Based on the findings of the project’s Environmental Noise Assessment Report prepare1
by Pacific Noise Control, dated January 7. 1998, tlhe project will be subject to significar
adverse noise conditions from off site. Vehicular traffic along Rancho Santa Fe Road wil
generate exterior noise that exceeds 60 dBa CNEL along the street side yard and rear yarc
of six lots in the project. Interior noise levels would also potentially exceed the City’s 4:
dBa CNEL standard on those same lots. To mitigate the significant exterior noise impac
at the homes on Lots 1 through 6 there would be a requirement for noise barriers rangin2
from five to seven-feet in height (Lots 1 and 2 - seven-foot high barrier, Lots 3 and 4- six
foot high barrier, Lots 5 and 6 - five-foot high barrier). If two-story homes are proposed
on Lots 1 through 6 an acoustical analysis will br: required for the homes on these lot2
prior to issuance of building permits to ensure that the interior CNEL would not exceec
45 dBa. To mitigate the interior noise impact, the homes on these lots would most like])
require air-conditioning and/or mechanical ventilation, and could require sound-ratec
windows.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
XI. PUBLIC SERVICESKII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
The proposed projectk subject to all the conditions of the Zone 1 1 Local Facilities Manageme
Plan as well as the Citywide Facilities Management Plan for 11 classes of public facilities a:
services. These plans projected facilities and service needs at buildout assuming that all dwelli:
units allowed under the City's Growth Management Plan were constructed. These faciliti
include those for: fire, police, school, roads, government offices, parks, sewer, storm drain. a
water. The Growth Management Plan requires a financing plan to be part of the Local Faciliti
Management Plan to assure the provision of the listed facilities and services concurrent with the
need. The Olivenhain Municipal Water District has provided a letter indicating its ability
provide the development with water service. In particular, and consistent with the City's Grow
Management Plan and applicable State law, the project applicant will be required to subrr
evidence to the City that the project impacts to school facilities have been adequately mitigatc
prior to issuance of building permits.
XIII. AESTHETICS
a-b) The construction of the project will not adversely affect an existing public -view or scen
amenity. In order to provide the lighting necessary for the safe movement of vehicles ar
pedestrians and to provide security for persons and property, the project will incluc
exterior lighting in the form of fixtures on the fitme buildings and street lights along ti
cul-de-sac street. Ths lighting will be directed so as to fall onto the site with a minimur
of spill-over to adjacent properties. The project will not create adverse lighting or glar
impacts to on or offsite residents.
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES
a-e) A cultural resource evaluation program was conducted for the property by Mooney L
Associates, dated November 1997. The resource survey identified two archaeologicz
sites (CA-SDI-2734 and CA-SDI-2735) within the project's boundary. The resource
were evaluated through fieldwork and testing and based on the findings presented in thi
report. the resources present on the site do not possess qualities of important c
significant value necessary to qualify for any further treatment or consideration.
To ensure that potential paleontological resources are not impacted, prior to any gradin)
of the project site. a paleontologist shall be retained by the Developer to perform i
walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans to determine if the proposec
grading will impact fossil resources.
XV. RECREATIONAL
a-b) The project will generate a small incremental demand for community parks anc
recreation facilities. The demand is offset by the City's Growth Management Plan, whicl
has planned population-based park and recreation facilities throughout the City an(
14 Rev. 03/28/96
e e
requires all new development to pay park fees to assure the construction of these faciliti
commensurate with population growth.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT - CUMULATIVE EFFECT:
CIRCULATION
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatc
1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequa
to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe
impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. The:
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbz
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway inlprovements, a number of intersectior
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. numerol
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include
measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions t
develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalk!
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatio
strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate c
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City t
control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eithe
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 till
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 i
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because thl
recent certification of Fina.1 Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, include(
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement 0
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan‘;
Master EIR, including this project. therefore, no further environmental review of circulatior
impacts is required.
SOURCE DOCUMENTS
(Note: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department, located at 2075 Las Palma:
Drive, Carlsbad CA 92009: Phone (760) 438-1 161)
1. Carlsbad General Plan, City of Carlsbad, 1994.
2. “Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation Wiegand Proper& Carlsbad, CA ”, Leighton
and Associates, November 2 1. 1997.
3. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan
Update, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
4. Wetland Delineation Report for the Wiegand Property, Mooney & Associates, May 1997.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
e a
5. Supplement Vegetation Analysis Letter Report for the Wiegand Property. Mooney &
Associates, December 1, 1997.
6. “Floodway and Floodplain Analysis Letter ”, Dr. Howard Chang. February 27. 1998.
7. “Colina Roble Environmental Noise Assessment ”, Pacific Noise Control. Januaq 7.
1998.
8. “Report of Archaeological Survey and Test Evaluation for the Wiegand Pr0pel.h:“.
Mooney & Associates, November 7,1997.
9. “Live Oak Tree at Colina Roble”, ADL Planning .Associates, April 2, 1998.
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLEJ
1. Prior to recordation of the first final tract map or grading permit, whichever occurs fir
the Developer shall prepare a detailed biological mitigation and monitoring plan
mitigate project impacts to biological resources including impacts to .74 acres of ripari;
habitat and one coastal live oak. Mitigation for the loss of any wetland is recommended
a 2:l ratio and the wetland shall be restored through onsite replanting and enhanceme]
based on the recommendations contained in the Mooney & Associates biological lett
report dated December 1997. Mitigation for the loss of the coastal live oak shall incluc
a replacement (36 inch box specimen) planting program at a 3:l ratio. The oak woodlar
mitigation shall take place in the existing oak woodland area located in the southel
upland portion of the site.
2. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map or the issuance of building permit
whichever occurs first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice that this proper,
may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, i
a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and City Attorney (see Noise For1
#1 on file in the Planning Department).
3. Prior to occupancy of individual units on Lots 1-6, the Developer shall construct soun
attenuation walls, berms, or a combination of both along the top of the slope and stref
side yard for these lots, in accordance with the recommendations of the project’s nois
study prepared by Pacific Noise Control, dated January 7, 1998 (Lots 1 and 2 - seven
foot high barrier, Lots 3 and 4- six-foot high barrier, and Lots 5 and 6 - five-foot hig
barrier).
4. If two-story homes are proposed on Lots 1 though 6 an acoustical analysis an
subsequent mitigation shall be required for the homes on these lots prior to issuance c
building permits to ensure that the interior CNEL does not exceed 45 dBa. The project’
building plans shall included a note on the plm stating the required interior nois
mitigation for Lots 1-6, if two-story homes are proposed, per the recommendations of thl
subsequent noise study.
5. Paleontology:
16 Rev. 03/28/96
e * a. Prior to any grading of the project site, a paleontologist shall be retained
perform a walkover survey of the site and to review the grading plans
determine if the proposed grading will impact fossil resources. A copy of '
paleontologist's report shall be provided to the Planning Director prior to issuax
of a grading permit;
b. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to perfom periodic inspections oft
site and to salvage exposed fossils. Due to the small nature of some of the foss
present in the geologic strata, it may be necessary to collect matrix samples 1
laboratory processing through fine screens. The paleontologist shall ma
periodic reports to the Planning Director during the grading process:
c. The.paleontologist shall be allowed to divert or direct grading in the area of
exposed fossil in order to facilitate evaluation and, if necessary, salvage artifacts
d. All fossils collected shall be donated to a public, non-profit institution with
research interest in the materials, such as the San Diego Natural History Museur
e. Any conflicts regarding the role of the paleontologist and the grading activities
the project shall be resolved by the Planning Director and City Engineer.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORTNG PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
17 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AN
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES pro THE PROJECT.
Date c/-/o-98 Si, pfld ature
18 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENT @ L MITIGATION MONlTORllUG CHE d LIST Page 1 of 4
F 9
n n T
4
0
Q)
F
ua 43
P 3
h(
03 ua
I- o
9
4
irj [r W m z 3 z
W A LL
w -J
0 w
z
-I 0 0
m
a -
0;
n
cj
..
W
Z W
d Z 0 i=
L3 z 0 0
-
..
iLi+
~n
~a Lis %E
w
24
ZJ
[ra a4
2%2?
z to 0 .9 - E
€S m 'Urn 8 .o 4 LFS
qD$
.- c. : !2 $ €5 .g 2 '5
'UE 2 .g a, 5 .- E LE? p L: .- -$$ :a!??
he .g OL-0)
agg
v)2 E
pv) .= .- u >
0 a=
SBZ
UEZ 2E 2 0 u-
0 O2 24 z
o,E
3.ZZA m.9mCq !??m 3.SSZ
rn 0 sz
mrn
a, .- CI
03Q
K*v)
Q*= V)
QCI L-
bY s 000
u a, .- E 5;
27 V)
c (DE k
.- a, u CCI
0
.- c us KQ s? a,= 8.5
v)w-
E $2 K
CU-UCU
~2 Qg .- o Eo ,moa, 'U OY) .- mS -= v) a,u sa
EZmo - mag 9 Qm
U-L 2
.sEmW gam
a, g E.o
3 Q) rn- 2 z.90
c a,.u,= a,E
i-255
K.E a %
p?= I==$
F.2 2 2 f K a,[r
2s E;;; - *= a3
Y v)
L E a, K
S 0 .- Y $3
>g
.- t !=a, &?E
E -
t
Kc 0, ;z cn
ulE (3 .E a, z
sm=
Inn OK5
.- Ytz 8.E z
ul c 'e Q) 8 QO t-
.- % w $I- 7 =E n
L -
OL E za,c U :% 2p .- op -v) t-.= kg gs- Zmu,(D 0 €zm..12-=5 s- o -ma,u*E =-0:2.g-zu - > f=n EL m = m.2 m a,.r F a, s g a, rn o*r,o*gm t & 5Y-5 a,- % Ln E++ - Q.~S 6 E~ - a,gs 0 5 E 2 m.0- 8 m.G E gs m 0 a.;;, a,zn 2 a,a,
;F -.a, g a, m -* .= :rnz gg
L cg E.- E kg:: €23 ;; €EZ 2 6- --wzz €"elnFa,* mm m a,rm"b O.z -in =00 m0 p'u 0 my (UT a, g 5 5.60 0 m a, 3 2 y) '5 L--
E + 02 L- om E!
0 O :.s a,5 2 a,+sMm.!g.&=u
m m g 3, n.;;; mQ% (II" gz 2 cx--C "-m2 S m c, mj!+z C (u>!m.a 0 5 P"ZE" 'Z QS, on cn aZ-0
-
Q) +-%.= y) a, y) .- !a
Q, CCal < & -7 13 Q= c 13 m m *- .- UC .-
$pa,OS 2 3u-5 mg 0 v) 2 L $ $OEXF.gm m= $1; a,*= 2s
* L- E 2 -0 ".s;g$5.G-u" ''= !! -Ej a, u s u cz
a LQ=~mb"su,~oooc mL I a)a,"tnx000
oem g~ gdn;so .- an a, a, E E m.G
.- O a, cU my) s a, v) Eo-,- (D gs dm+ m -
%=-e 25 $2 mzE 13" 3 5 0 E2""mJi%2,":~gmmo =xxe
s QS 2x xc c--
GmmE2!ro~~O~,~.-OOQ
J
< 1 1
I I
I I
I
5 2
I I
I c (
C c
.. -
i ; -
T
!E
a . .
ai .- c >
m
3 -
5 Go
5 .r SPj
0
IC x0 ;;
.- I s $
- re;
x2 Wl-
Mitigation Measure Monitoring
Type
2. Prior to the recordation of the first final tract map PROJECT
or the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs
first, the Developer shall prepare and record a Notice
that this property may be subject to noise impacts from
the proposed or existing Transportation Corridor, in a
form meeting the approval of the Planning Director and
City Attorney (see Noise Form #I on file in the
Planning Department).
3. Prior to occupancy of individual units on Lots I- PROJECT
6, the Developer shall construct sound attenuation
walls, berms, or a combination of both along the top of
the slope and street side yard for these lots, in
accordance with the recommendations of the project’s
noise study prepared by Pacific Noise Control, dated
January 7, 1998 (Lots 1 and 2 - seven-foot high barrier,
Lots 3 and 4- six-foot high barrier, and Lots 5 and 6 -
five-foot high barrier).
Monitoring
Department
PLANNING
PLANNING
Shown on Verified
Plans Implementation Remarks
Explanation of Headings: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative.
Monitoring Dept = Department, or Agendcy, responsible for monitoring a particular
mitigation measure.
information.
Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column wilt 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
RD -Appendix P
ENVIRONMENT~MITIGATlON MONITORING CHEL LIST: Page 3 Of 4 CA
I
v) 3 SQ) z2?
I
>g
- 1 .
mE z .r Q)
c3
_- gg z
KmZ
To OK5 a
m
‘C Q) QU 9 u .- h
C I-
=g sl- 7
a
m?ijs== mm8 s.&%2pzg 0am LLa, = 62 2 a,’i;.g
Gzg$:s up>;gg zq n+s 520
m ms-r 0 .g $2 €+a e.E v)
0 mags E”.=- .% (‘ .E E 0 2F s-ig sg!? (+L 2 Q” 5 a, U != a m-6 E-E mgm TJ2+ 3- 0 Qo LG m-= a m 5%- K 2%5
aQ)g, OL =S m.- g KI~F~~ 2 (I) o tL a, .a, 6
y” 0 seog %SEgmvjS
p..E 5 mm ~m goa,&x8- =Iz
u- mLm K G?sa,+-mo,jWOm m 2 2s m5 s $3” K.2 0-t E a, Em% m uc mP Q) .- Y ma-u nu-m 0 t L 862 5 5 mea, ps Fm5
- 0”QS a, og E;-; a,03.Sro mF 5 - m 8.Sm + EZrn
.e & 3 a- m 0 .- 2 O 3 =.E -- sm 2
3 y E..” I % QF
CI -0 mo m- om mlu -
‘t ms*EQ +k,a,S. gz: ”- : K2 mL a,
2 5Q5Fzs :“-oQ Q) Zoa Qt g2g 5 .=
s 0 to Q%*’o,€ ax Q, $ .a, na,k own mmlt
’m
1
’i; .E % .a, F a .- -n “Q- 0 0 mco
-zQ Zbt smg mea
=g .G 0) c
”a .-
v) m
S 0
mmu- m c yrm .- .- .c) a, a, --
v)
5
““g$’ESLm Eg!?aEa,~comE Egg., ~mm*~~~E~~~q~m~a~ m)cI 0 .- Oaa, sa a, i
i;>- a&Fon ~g~~-~?n~zgg~~@$ Tj gz.z’i;i= Fsmz =CY) a, 352 a,
0
c.0 O v)*% o 0 a,%== .- .- vj go 2 kS2.E g _._ m3r 6 m g.g- g+z a, 4- Qm.2 $ ks-& QZ (IJ 0) a%$ 04”-
a, L mp= u m3 L a, mQ.s Q, :.E m .- m m oa 3 - &,g.- a, uj a, = vg+ *px a, a,=% - mg Q
m3a LZ 3 Om3 2 ~J=K m. 0)
.-
0 0 IZ Q)se =s v, .- Fs
s 2s g Qm a,+ Z+l),om-= $$=C UEE g .- 25 % 0 - .E * cd QUJU gn oh QOS t QmU Ljeszd ~z Ez aj =mu
1 I
I i
.I
I < (
1
< I A
(
< ( i
I (
( I
I
t 5
I <
I
I <
r
c [ i -
7 ..
a . .
P)
m
3
.- - -
5 ilia
5 :i .G
= .ar
ma .2 g
g I1
x5?
L
-01
ul-
ENVIRONMENT;-.- * MITIGATION MONITORING CHEdLIST: d) Page 4 of 4
+ fn z x a,
8 0 .- I
.- f .k a,
x-"
>g bE
E -
t
SK 0, 52
rn
mE z .E a, c3
2< = E = 8r .- Z
2s 2
0, c '5 a,
w .- h no 8 F
El- 7 =z a
(I) -a, (I) mJ,t, -OJ=L.ES c1 g a" g5k.G
e a, gz; qg
-I gg g,.zs a,
CY) (I)E++E oE 05a,a, ~(I)Eoc+coo LO (I)u 0-m 0; 2
3 UJ Ocz3'a,oa, Q-m a,"".., m 2 v,s Ew gz5 2 Q-.g; gz m.g& >; .- 0 2% ma,u'E ET
ta m,n,oa, m v, m.&j a, xu 3 v) a,=% Q) P) ZTij 3r= U " =35= 0 02 5 0.G a,n t.E != no z (I) Lb v,- L 2 c
ggn a, o-(z QF - --"Urn- ag!Q.'
c? cz m-I zu (I) a, .E m g
gmco~wma,!Q.'v, z:.po m3 0 v, (I)"Zn.k €5
03% B 5 .E E= Q) g:g.go= LS
7- uJ m
x! QJ= 03 Q-my t
L
r
.- .- v, a,
3 a, 0 rnTij.2
mTij c
3 m~*im L 2.
bz E Q.&nS co o 3 Q.'BY-
'1 I
I
.- I
;r E
n: - - L
-
5 .g
.- 5 .; - ~LL 5 II -a
ul- li x: