Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-01; Planning Commission; Resolution 4601I 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4601 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM TO BUILDINGS WITH A TOTAL AREA OF 250,093 SQUARE FEET ON A 25.28 ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PALOMAR AIRPORT ROAD EXTENDING FROM AN AREA WEST OF HIDDEN VALLEY ROAD ON THE WEST TO AVIARA PARKWAY ON THE EAST IN THE COASTAL ZONE AND LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 5 CASE NAME: KELLY CORPORATE CENTER CASE NO.: SDP 97-25/CDP 97-52 CONSTRUCT FOUR TWO-STORY MULTI-TENANT OFFICE l1 I/ WHEREAS, Kelly Ranch Corporate Center I, LLC, “Developer”, h; l2 13 verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Kell:, Corporate Center I, LLC and the Kelly Family Trust, Trust 3, “Owner”, described a 14 15 16 17 Parcels 1 &2 of City of Carlsbad Boundary Adjustment No. 494 & Parcel 2 of City of Carlsbad Boundary Adjustment No. 388, excepting therefrom the portion lying easterly of Aviara Parkway 18 19 (“the Property”); and 20 21 22 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation monitol Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 23 ll WHEREAS, the Transportation Analysis for the project inch 24 the project and it has become apparent recently that Reach 2 may not be com: 25 assumption that Cannon Road Reaches 1 and 2 would be constructed prior to the op previously assumed in the study, additional background information and a cond 26 27 28 approval has been added to the Environmental Impacts Assessment Form - Part I1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program to address this timing issue. 0 0 1 2 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 1st day of Septemb 3 hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 4 WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all t 5 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by I 6 7 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered a 8 9 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the 10 Commission as follows: 11 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 12 13 14 15 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Commission hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration a to Exhibit "ND" dated August 6, 1999, and "PII" dated May 5, 1999 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached hereto anc part hereof, based on the following findings: l6 /I Findinm: 17 18 19 20 21 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analy considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the environmental impacts identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Mitigation Mo and Reporting Program, on file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROV project. Based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Con finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effe environment and hereby APPROVES the Mitigated Negative Declaration I Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. 22 2. The Planning Commission does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Dec 23 and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program have been prepared in acc 24 with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guide1 the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad. 25 3. The Planning Commission finds that the Mitigated Negative Declaration ref 26 27 28 incorporated into the project. 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 project ha PC RES0 NO. 4601 -2- 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 0 0 Conditions: 1. The Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of the Kelly C Center Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 1st day of September 199 following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’ Trigas and Welshons NOES: ABSENT: Commissioners Nielsen and Segall ABSTAIN: COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: MICHAEL J. HWZMIL~ER Planning Director I PC RES0 NO. 4601 -3- ll e e - City of Carlsbac AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddresdLocation: South side of Palomar Airport Road extending from an area wc of Hidden Valley Road on the west to Aviara Parkway on the eas Project Description: A Site Development Development Plan and Coastal Developme Permit to construct four two-story multi-tenant office buildini with a total area of 250,093 square feet. Individual building are; are 72,593 square feet, 50,000 square feet, 50,000 square feet, ar 77,500 square feet. A total of 1,006 at grade parking spaces will 1 provided. The total site area is 25.28 acres. 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, th initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (I revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before th proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid th effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmer would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the Cit that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for th: action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in th Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments fiom th public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department withm 21 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Don Neu in the Planniq Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4446. DATED: AUGUST 6,1999 CASE NO: SDP 97-25/CDP 97-52 CASE NAME: KELLY CORPORATE CENTER PUBLISH DATE: AUGUST 6,1999 0, MICHAEL J. H~MIL~R Planning Director 2075 La Palmas Dr. Carlsbad, CA 92009-1 576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-089. 0 e ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SDP 97-25/CDP 97-5 DATE: May 5,199 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Kelly Comorate Center 2. APPLICANT: Kelly Ranch Comorate Center I, LLC 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4365 Executive Drive, Suite 850, Sa. Dieao, CA 92121 4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: November 17,1997 5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Site Development Plan and Coastal Development Permit t construct four two-stow multi-tenant office buildings with a total buildinp area of 250.09 square feet. Individual building areas are 72,593 square feet, 50,000 square feet, 50.000 sauar feet, and 77,500 square feet. A total of 1.006 at grade parking spaces will be provided. The tots site area is 25.28 acres. The proiect site is located on the south side of Palomar Airport Road an extends from an area west of Hidden Valley Road on the west to Aviara Parkway on the east. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this projecl involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impac Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. 0 Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services 0 Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources Utilities & Sewice Systems Geological Problems 0 Energy & Mineral Resources [7 Aesthetics water Hazards Cultural Resources [XI Air Quality [XI Noise Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on tk environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 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 the mitigatic measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIV DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and E ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. [XI 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 earlic document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigatio measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Mitigate Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to b addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on th environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potential1 significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environment: Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voide or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MER 93-01: including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. LA 7-27-97 Planner Signature Date t +Mm Date 2 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Ci conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significa effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the followir pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and hum: 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), Negatil 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 a] adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following eac question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced informatic 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 tl 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 incorporatio of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and th City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce th effect to a less than significant level. e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that a effect is significant. 0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significar, effect on the environment, but &l potentially significant effects (a) have been analyze1 adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicab18 standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigatec Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up01 the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to o supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prio 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 been analyzed adequately in an earlier E11 pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement o Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. e A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tha the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e 0 If there are one or more potentially sipficant effects, the City may avoid preparing z EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than si@ficant, ar those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In th case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporatec may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and includir but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect hL not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, an the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less tha significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant impact h not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduc the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is nc possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, ( determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significa effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of tf form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentio should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determine significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible landuses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) (#l:PgS 5.6-1 - 5.6-18) 0 0 0 0 0 11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) o indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area 0 or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs- 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0 111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #7) b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #7) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #7 f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 0 0 ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1.15; #7) 0 5.1-15;#2: Pgs 111-1 12 - 111-1 18; #7) 0 0 0 n conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #7) g) Subsidence ofthe land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #7) h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #7) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15; #7) t3 IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2- 0 such as flooding? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #8; #9) 0 surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-1 1; #8; #9) 11; #8; #9) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 5 e Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated I7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact OIXI OB ow ow UIXI OIXI OB ow OH OH OIXI om ow ON OIXI OIXI OIXI ow OIXI ow Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #8; #9) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #8; #9) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. 2- 11; #8; #9) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ((#I :Pgs body? ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #X; #9) ((#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #8; #9) 5.2-1 - 5.2-11; #8; #9) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3- b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 1 - 5.3-12) - 5.3-12) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #5) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - proposal result in: 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #5; #6) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #5) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #2: PgS 111-58 - 111-69) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #5) (#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22; #5) 5.7.22; #5) Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact OIXI OIXI OIXI OH ow nIxI on UIXI OIXI OH on om OH DEI OIXI UIXI nw 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, no animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2; #3) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2; #3) 0 I7 DEI 6 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2; d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 #3) (#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24; #2: Pgs 111-37 - 111-58; #3) - 5.4-24; #2; #3) Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incomorated 0 IxI IxI JIl 0 Less Than No Significant Impac Impact on nu ON VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- " (#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0 OH 0 OH 1 - 5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 0 0 OH & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health d) Exposure of people to existing. sources of potential e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable brush, 0 OH 0 0 UIX] 0 OH 0 OH 0 0 OH 5.10.1-5) hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9- b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9- 15) 0 OH 1 - 5.9-15) 0 lxl nu XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 - 5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (#l, e) Other governmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 0 0 ON 0 0 OH 0 0 ON 0 UEI pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-7) 0 0 OH 7 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Significant Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & b) Communications systems? (#l; pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 - 5.12.3-7) e) Storm water drainage? (#l:Pg 5.2-8) f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3) g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) o 0 0 I7 0 0 0 0 0 facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7) 5.12.3-7) I7 0 XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 - 5.11-5) 5.11-1 -5.11-5) 0 0 5.11-1 -5.11-5) 0 XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8- c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 10) 10; ##4) 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-7) 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 [XI Less Than No Significant Impacr Impact UIXI nIXI OH OIXI U[xI OIXI nIXI u[XI OH nIx1 UIXI n1xI OIXI UIXI OIXI nIxI OH on Rev. 03/28/96 0 e Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impac Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? IXI 0 00 (“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? 0 0 El5 9 Rev. 03/28/96 0 a XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis of this proposed multi-tenant office building project has been completed throug the General Plan Update (GPA 94-01) and related Master Environmental Impact Report (ME1 93-01) . The MEIR is cited as source #1 in the preceding checklist. This proposal is consistel with the applicable portions of the General Plan and is considered a project that was describc in MEIR 93-01 as within its scope. All feasible mitigation measures identified in MEIR 934 which are appropriate to the project have been incorporated into this project. The project incorporates additional mitigation measures identified in site specific technic studies prepared to evaluate potential impacts and feasibility of the proposal as it relates biological resources, archaeological resources, transportation system impacts, geotechnic; feasibility, hydrology/drainage and that no additional significant unmitigated impacts beyon those identified by the Program EIR will result from this project. The following environment; evaluation briefly explains the basis for this determination along with identifying the sourc documents which support the environmental determination. 10 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONDCNVIRONMENTAL SETTING The project site is approximately 25.28 acres in size and is located on the south side of Palom Airport Road and extends fiom an area west of Hidden Valley Road on the west to Avia Parkway on the east. The project consists of four two-story multi-tenant office buildings with total building area of 250,093 square feet. Individual building areas are 72,593 square fet 50,000 square feet, 50,000 square feet, and 77,500 square feet. A total of 1,006 at grade parkir spaces will be provided. The project includes detention basins adjacent to Palomar Airport Roac Routine maintenance of the basins will occur to maintain their function. The site has historical1 been used for agriculture and is bordered or bisected by roadways. Encinas Creek runs throug the southern and western areas of the project site. The property contains four vegetatic communities. These include southern willow scrub, coastal and valley freshwater mars; eucalyptus woodland, and ruderal vegetation. The areas of the site proposed to be developed a: relatively level and range from a low of 66 feet in the northwest corner to 83 feet in the northea comer. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS B. Environmental Impact Discussion V. a) AIR QUALITY The implementation of projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 Gener Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehcle miles travele These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organi gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the majc contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the Sa Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in tl: 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 variet of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisior for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measurt to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demm Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mas transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5 participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into th design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project i located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marke “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, th preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by Cit Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for a quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects withi] the scope of the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no fbrthe environmental review of air quality impacts is required. Ths document is available at thl Planning Department. VI. a) TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION The implementation of projects that fall within the scope of and are included in the updated 199d General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate tc accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severe1 impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. Thes generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbac Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersection: 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, nurnerou: 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 tc develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulatiol 12 Rev. 03/28/96 0 e strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have eith been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approva Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of tl failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefor the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact”. This project consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because tl recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, includt a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement ( Overriding Considerations” applies to all projects that fall within the scope of the General Plan Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no fwther environmental review of circulatic impacts is required. A study by Urban Systems Associates titled “Transportation Analysis for Kelly Corporal Center”, dated March 1 y 1999 has been accepted by the Engineering Department. The stud concluded that no significant traffic impacts should result from the project as a multi-tena office site, and no additional cumulative circulation mitigation measures should be neede beyond those identified in the City of Carlsbad Master EIR and the LFMP Zone 13 Traffi Environmental Review. The study recommends the following which is included on the projec plans: 1) The Palomar Airport Road at Hidden Valley Road and Palomar Airport Road at Aviar Parkway intersections shall be designed with right turn only lanes for the eastbound tl southbound right turn. A vehicle storage length of two hundred and fifty feet wit: transition designed to CALTRANS specifications is recommended at Aviara Parkwa and one hundred and fifty feet with transition at Hidden Valley Road. Fully designed an engineered improvement plans shall be prepared for these conditions for approval by th City Engineer. Since the time traffic count information was obtained for the project’s traffic analysis the cit] received the annual growth management traffic monitoring report. This project could have : potentially significant negative cumulative traffic impact on the Palomar Airport Roam Camino Real intersection. However, this project has been conditioned to pay its fair share of thc “short-term improvements” thereby, guaranteeing implementation of a mitigation measure tha reduces the potential impact to a level of insignificance. The following is the required mitigatiol measure: 2) The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the E Camino RealPalomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of any building permits. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected bJ Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; an( increased or new Zone 5 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; 01 incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. The Urban Systems Associates study titled, “Transportation Analysis for Kelly Corporate Center”, dated March 1, 1999 included an assumption that Cannon Road would be constructed from its current western terminus to El Camino Real (Reaches 1 & 2). Due to recent events il has been determined that Reach 2 of Cannon Road may not be complete prior to the projecl opening. Therefore, to provide adequate mitigation in the event Reach 2 of Cannon Road is not 13 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 complete prior to the project opening the Engineering Department is proposing the addition 1 the following traffic mitigation measure: 3) “Prior to issuance of a building permit, construction of Cannon Road Reach 2 shall 1 underway to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.” The proposed mitigation measure is not a new item in that the traffic study assumed tl improvement would be in place. It primarily addresses the issue of timing between the openil of the project and the completion of Cannon Road. The availability of Cannon Road will pem persons working in the business parks north of Palomar Airport Road to utilize that new roadw? thereby freeing up capacity on Palomar Airport Road whch would be available for vehicle tril generated by the Kelly Corporate Center Project. VII. a, c. & d) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES A report titled, “Kelly Corporate Center Biological Resources Report”, dated August 4, 19s and “Kelly Corporate Center Riparian Mitigation Plan”, dated April 21, 1999 both by Hell Environmental Planning, Inc. have been prepared for the project. The determination of tl. biologist in surveying the site is that four vegetation communities are found on the propec These include southern willow scrub, coastal and valley freshwater marsh, eucalyptus woodlanl and ruderal vegetation. No species listed as threatened or endangered were observed or a~ expected to occur on site. Routine maintenance of the detention basins on site adjacent t Palomar Airport Road is permitted to ensure their function. Impacts The project as currently proposed will completely avoid direct impacts to Encinas Creek. 1 majority of the remainder of the site will be impacted by the project. This will result in direc impacts to southern willow scrub of approximately 0.30 acre of habitat including 0.26 acre alon Palomar Airport Road for the recontouring of the slope for the construction of the propose detention basins and 0.04 acre of impacts to other areas along Encinas Creek. No freshwatt marsh vegetation will be impacted. Impacts to the southern willow scrub are considerec significant. Mitigation The United States Fish and Wildlife Service recommended that impacts to southern willow scrul be mitigated at a 2:l ratio. As sufficient area does not exist to accomplish the creation of OJ acres of habitat within the project area, the 2:l ratio will be met through the creation of 0.3 acre .of riparian woodland (1 : l), with the balance to be achieved through off-site mitigatior: Mitigation for impacts to southern willow scrub will be mitigated by restoration of this habit? type on site at a 1:l ratio (0.30 acre). The mitigation will occur in the southwestern comer of th site adjacent to Encinas Creek. This mitigation site is considered superior to the existing habita on site being impacted because it will be located at least 400 feet south of Palomar Airport Roac and will be graded down to create a natural hydrological regime that will not require a permanen water source. The following are the biological mitigation measures required for the project: 1) Mitigation for impacts to southern willow scrub shall be mitigated by restoration of thi: habitat type at a 1 :1 ratio within the southwestern corner of the site as depicted on Figurc 4, “Mitigation Location - Kelly Corporate Center” of the Kelly Corporate Center Riparia Mitigation Plan dated April 21, 1999 prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. P 14 Rev. 03/28/96 0 * detailed restoration plan must be developed and approved by the California Departme of Fish and Game. The restoration plan must identify a planting plan, including pla palette and seed mixes, and develop success criteria for restoration. A maintenance a1 monitoring period, usually five years, will be required to assure that the restoration art meets with identified success criteria and restoration goals. 2) Offsite mitigation for 0.3 acres of riparian woodland shall be achieved through tl establishment and placement of initial funds into a non-wasting fund approved by tl U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Ths fund would allow for various management activitic which benefit wetlands and the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo) with: Encinas Creek to take place in perpetuity. The exact amount of this initial fimding sha be determined by the USFWS. This amount, along with fund establishment and tl identification of the entity charged with fund management, shall be approved by tl USFWS prior to occupancy and written confirmation from USFWS shall be provided . the Planning Director. 3) Prior to grading plan approval areas of the site to be preserved in their existing conditio shall be clearly demarcated on the grading plans to the satisfaction of the Plannin Director and City Engineer. A habitat protection fence detail approved by the Plannin Director and City Engineer shall be included on the grading plan along with the locatio for its installation. These areas shall be fenced in the field by a qualified biologist wh shall also submit to the Planning Director a letter attesting to the accuracy of the fencin location prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 4) To assure that no direct impacts to the least Bell’s vireo occur during project grading, a grading that creates noise in excess of 60 dB Leq at the western property boundary sha, OCCUT outside of the vireo breeding season (March 15 - September 15). Alternativelq grading noise levels shall be reduced to below 60 dB Leq by the construction of nois attenuation devices during the breeding season. Grading that creates noise in excess o 60 dB Leq at the western property boundary during the vireo breeding season would b allowed if it can be shown, based on focused surveys by a qualified biologist, that nl least Bell’s vireos are using habitat in areas where the 60 dB Leq threshold is exceedec Alternatively, a noise bamer that reduces grading noise to below 60 dB Leq could also b used to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. A noise monitoring prograr indicating the type of equipment to be used to measure noise levels, the monitorin, location, responsible personnel and the frequency of monitoring as its relates to thc grading schedule shall be submitted for Planning Director and U.S. Fish and Wildlifc Service approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit unless the focused survey, indicate that no least Bell’s vireos are using habitat that would be impacted by noisl levels exceeding 60 dB Leq. If it is determined that indirect impacts cannot be avoided “take” would need to be authorized as part of a section 7 consultation with the U.S Army Corps of Engineers. 5) To minimize indirect impacts to Encinas Creek, the proposed 50 foot setback shall bl revegetated using native upland plant species. This shall be included in the landscapi plans for the project which must be approved prior to the approval of a grading plan Review and approval of the landscape plans for the buffer area by the USFWS is alsc required prior to grading plan approval. Limited encroachment into the 50 foot setbacl where access to the site is gained from Aviara Parkway is acceptable to allow fo; appropriate traffic spacing on Aviara Parkway and is shown on the project plans. 15 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 6) An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Direct1 and US. Fish and Wildlife Service approval prior to building permit issuance. A lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homl or property. The maximum height of all light fixtures shall not exceed 30 feet. X. b) NOISE The majority of the project site is located within the 65 to 70 decibel CNEL noise contou identified in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for McClellan-Palomar Airport with an area 1 the northeast corner of the site falling within the 70 to 75 decibel CNEL noise contou SANDAG prepared a site specific plot of the noise contour lines in relation to proposed buildini and it was determined that no structures will be located within the 70 to 75 decibel CNEL noit contour. Office buildings are listed on the McClellan-Palomar Airport Noise/Land Ut Compatibility Matrix as conditionally compatible in the 65 to 70 decibel CNEL noise level wil the following mitigation measures: 1) Proposed office buildings shall be noise attenuated to an interior level of 50 decibe CNEL based on an acoustical study submitted along with building plans. Concurrent wil the submittal of building plans the applicant shall submit an acoustical stuc documenting what construction materials or measures must be utilized to meet requirt interior noise levels. A letter signed by the acoustical engineer and the project architec which contains the architects registration stamp and certifies that the recommendations c the acoustical study have been incorporated into the building plans shall be submitted an approved by the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance. 2) Prior to the issuance of building permits the Developer shall prepare and record a Notic that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existin Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director an City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). 3) Prior to the issuance of building permits the Developer shall prepare and record a Notic that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating fron McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director anc the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). 4) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigatio: Easement for the property to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the recordel document with the Planning Director. 16 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City 4 Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 9200 (760) 438-1161, extension 4446. 1. “Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General P1i Update” (MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 2. “Kelly Corporate Center Biological Resources Report”, dated August 4, 1998, Heli Environmental Planning, Inc. 3. “Kelly Corporate Center Riparian Mitigation Plan”, dated April 21, 1999, Helj Environmental Planning, Inc. 4. “Kelly Corporate Center Trail: Archaeological Resources”, dated August 14, 1991 Hertiage Resources. 5. “Transportation Analysis for Kelly Corporate Center” , dated March 1, 1999, Urbe Systems Associates, Inc. 6. “Growth Management Plan, City of Carlsbad, California, 1998 Traffic Monitorin Program”, Valley Research And Planning Associates. 7. “Geotechnical Investigation for Kelly Ranch Corporate Center”, dated April 1997, Robe] Prater Associates. 8. “Hydraulic Analysis of Encinas Creek for Kelly Corporate Center”, dated November : 1997, Crosby Mead Benton & Associates. 9. “Preliminary Drainage Report Kelly Corporate Center”, dated November 7, 1997, Crosb Mead Benton & Associates. 17 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1) The Palomar Airport Road at Hidden Valley Road and Palomar Airport Road at Avix Parkway intersections shall be designed with right turn only lanes for the eastbound . southbound right turn. A vehicle storage length of two hundred and fifty feet wi transition designed to CALTRANS specifications is recommended at Aviara Parkw: and one hundred and fifty feet with transition at Hidden Valley Road. Fully designed ar engineered improvement plans shall be prepared for these conditions for approval by tl City Engineer. 2) The Developer shall pay his fair share for the “short-term improvements” to the 1 Camino ReaWalomar Airport Road intersection prior to the issuance of any buildir permits. The amount shall be determined by the methodology ultimately selected 1 Council, including but not limited to, an increase in the city-wide traffic impact fee; ar increased or new Zone 5 LFMP fee; the creation of a fee or assessment district; ( incorporation into a Mello-Roos taxing district. 3) Mitigation for impacts to southern willow scrub shall be mitigated by restoration of th habitat type at a 1 : 1 ratio within the southwestern corner of the site as depicted on Figu 4, “Mitigation Location - Kelly Corporate Center” of the Kelly Corporate Center Ripari: Mitigation Plan dated April 21, 1999 prepared by Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. detailed restoration plan must be developed and approved by the California Departme of Fish and Game. The restoration plan must identify a planting plan, including pla: palette and seed mixes, and develop success criteria for restoration. A maintenance ar monitoring period, usually five years, will be required to assure that the restoration arc meets with identified success criteria and restoration goals. 4) Offsite mitigation for 0.3 acres of riparian woodland shall be achieved through tl establishment and placement of initial funds into a non-wasting fund approved by tl U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This fund would allow for various management activitil which benefit wetlands and the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus; vireo) with Encinas Creek to take place in perpetuity. The exact amount of this initial funding s& be determined by the USFWS. This amount, along with fund establishment and tl identification of the entity charged with fund management, shall be approved by tl USFWS prior to occupancy and written confirmation from USFWS shall be provided the Planning Director. 5) Prior to grading plan approval areas of the site to be preserved in their existing conditic shall be clearly demarcated on the grading plans to the satisfaction of the Plannir Director and City Engineer. A habitat protection fence detail approved by the Plannir Director and City Engineer shall be included on the grading plan along with the locatic for its installation. These areas shall be fenced in the field by a qualified biologist wl shall also submit to the Planning Director a letter attesting to the accuracy of the fencil location prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 6) To assure that no direct impacts to the least Bell’s vireo occur during project grading, ; grading that creates noise in excess of 60 dB Leq at the western property boundary sh; occur outside of the vireo breeding season (March 15 - September 15). Alternative1 grading noise levels shall be reduced to below 60 dB Leq by the construction of noi attenuation devices during the breeding season. Grading that creates noise in excess 60 dB Leq at the western property boundary during the vireo breeding season would 1 18 Rev. 03/28/96 0 0 allowed if it can be shown, based on focused surveys by a qualified biologist, that n least Bell’s vireos are using habitat in areas where the 60 dB Leq threshold is exceedec Alternatively, a noise barrier that reduces grading noise to below 60 dB Leq could also k used to reduce impacts to below a level of significance. A noise monitoring progral indicating the type of equipment to be used to measure noise levels, the monitorin location, responsible personnel and the frequency of monitoring as its relates to tk grading schedule shall be submitted for Planning Director and U.S. Fish and Wildlil Service approval prior to the issuance of a grading permit unless the focused surve) indicate that no least Bell’s vireos are using habitat that would be impacted by nois levels exceeding 60 dB Leq. If it is determined that indirect impacts cannot be avoidec “take” would need to be authorized as part of a section 7 consultation with the U.: Army Corps of Engineers. 7) To minimize indirect impacts to Encinas Creek, the proposed 50 foot setback shall E revegetated using native upland plant species. This shall be included in the landscar plans for the project which must be approved prior to the approval of a grading pla Review and approval of the landscape plans for the buffer area by the USFWS is als required prior to grading plan approval. Limited encroachment into the 50 foot setbac where access to the site is gained from Aviara Parkway is acceptable to allow fi appropriate traffic spacing on Aviara Parkway and is shown on the project plan. 8) An exterior lighting plan including parking areas shall be submitted for Planning Direct( and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service approval prior to building permit issuance. A lighting shall be designed to reflect downward and avoid any impacts on adjacent homt or property. The maximum height of all light fixtures shall not exceed 30 feet. 9) Proposed office buildings shall be noise attenuated to an interior level of 50 decibe CNEL based on an acoustical study submitted along with building plans. Concurrent wil the submittal of building plans the applicant shall submit an acoustical stud documenting what construction materials or measures must be utilized to meet require interior noise levels. A letter signed by the acoustical engineer and the project architec which contains the archtects registration stamp and certifies that the recommendations ( the acoustical study have been incorporated into the building plans shall be submitted an approved by the Planning Director prior to building permit issuance. 10) Prior to the issuance of building permits the Developer shall prepare and record a Notic that this property may be subject to noise impacts from the proposed or existin Transportation Corridor, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director an City Attorney (see Noise Form #1 on file in the Planning Department). 11) Prior to the issuance of building permits the Developer shall prepare and record a Notic that this property is subject to overflight, sight and sound of aircraft operating fro1 McClellan-Palomar Airport, in a form meeting the approval of the Planning Director ar the City Attorney (see Noise Form #2 on file in the Planning Department). 12) Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Developer shall record an Avigatic Easement for the property to the County of San Diego and file a copy of the record€ document with the Planning Director. 19 Rev. 03/28/96 nrrS IS TO CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE REVIEWGD THE ABOVE MITIGAITNG MEAsb’iREs AND CONCUR WlTR THE ADDmON OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 7/27/99 Date siglklre 20 Rev. OX28196 .IC... i 137: UJ. .-..- .." - ' ,8',!2.::1999 1:: 29 7E',C_rLl38 e NFI-ICN FLU1.ii.iiI.X. 1. C.U!3E MPLICW CONCT - WTN ~r~r~sf~o~ -1 m THIS IS TO CER71FY THAT I IiAE WEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING hlEASUKES ., CONCUR Wrrw THE ADDITION OF THESE MEMWS TO THE PROJECT. a ~&?qP" 20 Rev. 03128196 ENVIRONMENTAL MITeTION MONITORING CHECKLISmPAGE 1 OF 5 v Q) h n n Y v v) h Q) Q v) n i/j of UI a 2 3 Z Y - LL t * r: G Q, 0 * 2 b s w 2 a z I- o W 0 > - - i$ a 0; n cj .. w w Z d 0 k n Z 0 o Z w I- s 2 2 1 a > n $?za .- a+ E -5 0 0 "a & .G z 22: $ €5 nag 2 men .= u) a, €+ $ O3Q .r g p + " s '5 20 .E .E a, 5 .e E Y- AI '5 -"u s gE2 9g2 2iip .E a .v, ,o a$ E 5 ",a yj a, .e s so 0 ag 0 .P a, 42 a 5 m= om% E32- uqj $?E m 0 u- b "$2 E4 $ 8E .- c $9 a,&F & g .- 3 -52 n 5.Ggz $% 3s EZSs 0 Eo *=moa, g)s om -e a a,= EZa,O - mno ,m Qa Ern a, 5 SF 5 0 gama .SE'Ua, s s a,lx a, g €2 3 a,;Ei% 2% E;;; 2 a,.E" OL Q+ L U-x s 000 - .- 'E u h .- a, u a.- mcq om a,-ucv e2 Qg .- !=a, $2 8 a.5 s n .- s c.0 3 - a,:+m om mo - s I-ZSm Y, u) m 5 K S 0 .- c zs sa) $E >a, € S - S :F 2 82 u) L v) pg b & 6€ .E u) S .- .- cr a) .- a) S m .- S .G si; w ul C 0 S .- + 2% $5 .e 2 c 0 .- a, -? n n 1-1 I II ~ ~~ 2 =I UI Q 2 C 0 Q rn ;t: .- .w .- I u a a, a, cusu L s SS a0 a,.- s&? m.O - zgu3m uogg"' U marc a 2 ;x-% 2 CY$? g;- €2 mag 02 L smL $.&E.& "Y- 0 i3.z 2 & = h- 9 3 ge a.? mah .E 2 >.g w <$EQ$,m=J-, x a,m .Y-cuLLTjo uasshs2 c 0 3zgmu+ am I S"LI-.O c m u) 5 m'Sr a? $-2L !e 3 0 cg ua.p m %E h~9 m+ u og- 0 0 mg cum m a, a lx U .- tl~ *,,a m e a, m 0 05 5E ha, > 5 Eof g gc1 mu gY- qhJa ospz.E s 4-l m-c CL z 2z?> E Q 7J Qa 5.2392 o&zp.$ .- Earnu+- SLa,50USSL (I3 mn 0 s.Sz a," a, omo nE-nS o.za s-~a, a>.Jj s g a,SzTJ Ea V) CUU, mb as c mJ= m != a,+ m s + 5 ha, a0 a, s 0 E sg.GE5 0 agY- h7 E! $2 I moa--,+ 21 a, a,.- - m 2.5 -$z 2 42E 2 5 551 L a, m €5 hu." a,o.Exo log %.& &ao$ gg- 5 h8,x- ci L5$? g a, 3E #= c .- + a UCCY-n Sa g a0 .- ob Lo - sN.E .- -2 z u .- a .0+om'a, F$ &s a, a, L E x+ s 0 a 2-0 a sz LO a - -0 + mkc $ g mza a, a,$ m 2 m c+ me m a c &I-.ES.& "5 L €.GS=JuU a, Xb'E A?= m m -OPg&g)'E$' > 0 a,0 d"c s 0 0 0.g 0" c gz mu+= != I-~an €2.~ $ m QS .0 E .- a, a, a,+ .- a, a, =+ a, Qof Q-= c L.L =j a+ a, E QZ - -Ii 0 a -0 a S X m a 0 .- L + .- .- + + 2 0 - - m 0 c + " - - n 7 cv U C 1 - E .- E C cu n L D P 3 2 c m 0 .- c .- .- 1 E C a 2 c 0 m C a .- + + - f - e -0 a, E > & aj -= > m - 2 ;;a 5 2u .E mo 05 %a 2: .- s .; *. 0 -a, 5 E? II W+ ENVIRONMENTAL MITWTION MONITORING CHECKLISmPAGE 2 OF 5 - - 1 uz sa 0-z a)€ >a, - S 22 5: m ~.: L E .G a S S S m S S m a .- g= S m gmm E .- ii - i. s+ g Y 0 a, Y 0 a, e " a e a -3 ii $.G.$&aU a, SUQ Ug g a,gEsAU Q- a= s 3 azu v)z;coz--a, hE u au xs - .- m 0 mxz 55a 0 a,T sn 0 $3 s 0 -" 2Y?$ ,Qq G 3 533 3.G&s a,.G 0,Uk 2- muu.= g.g 5 fJI0 5 >7Jz..P- s I) L cU-= p 5 a, 2 m E m-5 3z.-OEz a:+ L 9 = aJ mu mu s.G c 3,xv) am E m b~ ?g F .= Suu gs m$j a, m~ a r=a o L 0n.g a 055 s.&G&g a.s a, .G i7j $ mz 3 &$ESU 2% kg.9zz 3 05 F ma, = Cnp504 0 .E) Q) y-s n .- gus3v) c .g Gz mor 0 E r T .zzg""gP& XEESa, Xv) Ssa,~s3~g2& LO - pm G= am 00 gssgz a,s9Eg" = Q.-z= (5.g v)n m a$ SLY& 0 0 zag+ v):='5 a==zs$z ~a s 0- 0'5 0.25 ' g&2Z.GQg s .- 2mSQ arc 2ggZ;.E m$~,_Cv) 0 ZgEgZ ;cozO~coo~~$.~,m .- 5 0 m= gnso 02 =-KG $2: oEnua>,xY 5" in'rn s :ha 21 mggp @KO 8 'CLv) ga, g 8 a, hS a, v) ,= xu.: 5Ua hags E=.-= an zuKDL'm,o 3g-=TT: 0 $%;.E Qau %I- sgco=", 0 m z 0 g.Ez5 m a%a= k 3 cL m,O 8 8$ gsz5vjEa !e a)%$ o 0 v)mda,ZG QLS si -E=)% u != !z Ok.2 b-ui cj @S a) 2 n2ama,v)=a, a, % .5 Q .E .& .a, Q) a, ~$G=:+E,~~ m 3- 0 0 Q h gzso$, TU-v)>a,F v) OL r0.g EO?s m s gg P ha ~$~o$~$;co$ .prm~~- a gzu.g.g - a,mFu~ En- E~o~"co3~ ma,Qa-S.GF!= 00 mm 0 m g $ m Es Gz a,= Q.G a-=m 33jm O.ka5,t: mm r m L. a)= a,a,S-a, -x~Zm-La, a0 2ucg=-azg a, QO v)U L.- u- c 5 m.2 Qm += m 'G L 2 3 v) .E 5 .e c .n- > 0% 0 m fSd0~na, .- 0% - m~a~, E m 0.' s & mmo 3 L" mma,3 nc3s--- Z g a2 a, c~xn c s 3.E s a, 'F; 2 v) \c -"5.g$2zEz2 a, Q zE..- m v) Q.2- L- 8(3yggSg m Q) ma a a%g,$ a,= S 0 GL>> EU5 e8 mgF - m.- bE SL= x+U Q) 5 25 x- .r S LY m.=n, v) 0 m 0 .E" ssa -E> om e5.c .~~fZ~%,=~Q~~$v) as=, m 0 (u ez s aJ a mu, 2 u L xQ Q~ZQZ~~;%& ~o,~ao~aa,~3,g~ La)a,a,SIm,mU@Jm$ ma- =3o.gm.k nS La Lzsa Qa, s.G v) Ln=m 0 0 m g c ?->.G=Z-g Q= ssS v) =- om a, 0 ULL - a,.GWE bq v) a, (5 gss-F; m-masamm 3c Cu Pa2 L.5 a05s+ 32% o mz3 EaZzZ $52 2 ESEU hg~ E E E 2s k5u CuOs~ v)'-UU KL a)U s.s .= 2,xa a,Lz *s s- mzx s 0 a,m e= a,= b 05.3 3.2s m =a, L X- K.- .p,pv).gQ~Okz '0 a,.&.3? g 5 m= m v) .- mxI2 2 m> az =. - - - 1 ) n m n v h Ln T c I - 5 ._ i I ! 2 1: 1: 0 E c .- + ll .- .- + E C 2 .- E - E - E .- R S .- U E > kt aj .- > m - I i ;;a 5 .s co: I: .o 'g f=% i;ja f II "0) Wk i; x? ENVIRONMENTAL MITeTION MONITORING CHECKLlS1)PAGE 3 OF 5 - 3 - S C .- c 85 IE c a - E a€ >1: - C 0 s: 2?i 3K CT) - u); 'r: E .- st SR SC 2: - 0) c .- 6E 5+ .e > 2 - Q) v) 3 m L i$ c 0 m w 2= .- U 5 - - - - - ! ; ? ! - ! ! - ! I L ) I - ) L , - - ~ u) S S c a m .- - Y 0 a a .- 2 0 v) hm 23-KGS '5 3 gg 9 v)LO&l% L"k.,f - m m E oB z52ga m mg-5 - Q.53 . "3 a,2s 5 m2g-v mmm a 5 cTW€ m 6a,q QCJS Q .- Eo, 3 a, + euoa "m0L I .- +o a TJ a,& "m 0.5 0 0 - m cup 5 pg v)s 2 .5 a, 2- ;".E m c -a,Fo, a a.., s m a,+ 0 'CL +=- 0 a, SL + Q$=L E 0 CQ v) 0"OOcu ,M v) a, *.=m.s+ a, a, a, o mz a,u mxz.~~-b cGa, 3U3na, 0"m 9u- z .G u- a)s s.G%Ja* 0) -0 .- 8.E 0- m.C.a, kx-g-Ez-Egz v))Ov)-s >r= as mz5 .- cur o>c!=uE=a,c ca,zccc SI $5s 6 cpg mc ZSg .~E cTsLL r.2 3 em ma, - a,.G2-Shrn m mu a,,m.- WE am 0 a, a,n.s.., &; g a, a,q'clj v) 3 z% 8" v) 2z g 2 sp cuJ=5.g %+uCorf ,3skB2a,oo "a, - 5s: a+-o c m 0 0% mc $5 kjc 3 as QSU me+ za 0 s -E 5 3 v) VJ 2 v)-oa 2 o.u)+-s e ha, c.G m -22 m mg $ g -0 %zz c-0 g5+ v) v) > q L3uc.G q u3-0 O 2-5 L a, 0 a,.= mz'C5 L 0 L g ma5 8: a, c"3g2>u-s a, a, o-v)4 L-0 OF.$Sa,a,.comoQ&E a% tis m"p= a)a)-.- 0 656 Qp 3 $.€5q m s o,+ 0) a,mtoy6qlo - m a, IS+ a, 3 5.9 g uu m.& EEUE "2.0 a)+ m>5 m a, 0 mc4 5 m 0 a,= gg a, a, m-; a,% t nv) 0 0- F 2 QE.g g, v)s.&L3 >am 2ZmJa,a, ?z..rmam a,gmgm~.z v)-l E mq - m m+.g ;."SS a,ceu0y5 u+)Erp-,3>-E-a,5 U -oaoa, $ X" L -0 z "v) s 2 0 .- .- ma% ;25 a5 ,o m rS a, v) L su "F'TSc" a,mnxa) Q o m>rs g5 "%3g$s.c a, s-c a, w-0 v) a,.- c 0.E 35 en mu m~-e,~ != a, 09 sggzg.'g~ E= - Is -0 & 3.g cg m &a gy (u e Emu- m a, v) ea3 3mo2= 0 a, 0 o%= $0 m-ro.so 06 mag.E €as E v)S mc.EW 8 ~go~~rnom2a~~~v).z$mo rm Oc u: ?Sa s Q 5 m5 0 3.G a, m.- - - Lena, .- ua, c0 aE " 2a.5 55 2 sg QS E $3 5 E% =.,+u s3 c 0 .- QZX S - G I T: c + - E .- i c a: 1: (r (c IT a: k ? E S .- - (c .- .t- .- E C s .- 5 6 II u 1 m a, E - - E TI a, !E > z .- !2 E' - + m ;;a z i .G w" sa, .- .cI 0 .g f II x2 ma -a Wt- ENVIRONMENTAL MITWTION MONITORING CHECKLISaPAGE 4 OF 5 u) m 5 5 fY 0 S .- c) 32 Ea %€ >a, E - ~ C sc 0Y) zz .- Fg 0) (I) L E C .G 0) .- 0) c c C C K m Q 8r 5X.E g 2: m a Q .- .- - - 0) c .- 5% 2 .- .F m m cJ=g fy0-g >a I 2Zz5 b 3 5 .E .- a, 9s" m 0 a, my 3 m cx hS e e 2;"" m Qg 3 - -mgga5 2 ,am +SF m Q,ga +sEa &:g a, 3rc=.G g$c E ;55-,a Sa a .9 ze aLL &I* 0JU.E Q"a a$" $ msga,.po = * a.0 Qa, "~.~..~p= a, Q) s -= 300 o.+a&zcaa"5 2 gal= 0)c -"u S.EJ & 25 4"" 3z 2 m- .E >= 3.E:SyWm~" s 0- zaa~gE2 m n.s~n m 52 ogm ki g .E a%= m a,Js.sz $43 a s 0 w a, a.a)mv,.= o I+ QL r: on Ks .9wp a I a)+ mS Q, S Q++.z 0 gmw - 3 Q" 8.E.E zc a,- a,.& a,-= bo" om=- m.z fJl E2jy-fjsan "325 .- c $5 c u a c 0 a Q .- Q Q ~_ ss,a,muhraa,a,g om us'c m a,u-~-Jg&~~m.~ uo s -JS+E~~& ccQ 52 Os.ELso ,m o 2 a0 g 3a& 3 m.z= (13 - E K JZ~~s&~~a Ai= am L 0+9CngmcJ SUIL O= rcma- -a,mm,oLa,--2 a, OW iO Fog 8 $ Q-5 mz 5 v) Q 3 %-LLrnL" 0 0 wc.9 L0.E m E 2gu'E 2 O.ZU.- 2 QZ -x o a Vj5 9 %$€ mQ!=z s aagZ3 a, 3- L Lz 5m v)C +=E mt- Q+ 0 QU"~ aEKoKF'3o Q- 3zc-c 9 a"€ E ."~~~,~Srn~, a 0 s ma+ a x .Id : .- E:-@ Ez 0 gssz .- cJ, gug a m'L L L og, aj K mo m?s% Z%ZQ);m & aL2u QE Q-~o~sg-g EE.E.tl (IJ&a,om.->r su Q-J .- "SQ3;r sg Q ,,gm.&-~E~2 rc 3 K"SC a, a, =.(I) a)Lo%5"' g.g 2 o,o+ a, -s GPQa,> c. LOL Eoa,_gmrg"""k'~~3=r~L~sm8a,~.E~ t 0- c.&& 3z o.t:, tu E om= 3=g 6 5: am7 %.&?.E $2 a, 02s - a 'E om a, a, 2 €5 m.9 %&.UT, Q, Q, Q, " .- rn m" I" 0 a s 3.9s.G &.gm €2 sa-0 gm +$..oa,z= s a, 0 CI s m(lJ "g'o am .k+ cn+l=.g3u~Z s .- a 0 Q>cI)-' ass .- Kg3 &=)%2sn&$ -J3oa,se&g I ot~s:~aa,.E2g L 0-0 orn>;oa, Eungu O " rn ao> a,-E ae g-zs a, 0 a, *=-a a, m.oum 62 .- "2 am na, m.5 0 a, 0 S am E ,"& a,a.- S .E 5 a,E5 3 3 8; 0 2 t32 QS AQc > L+ 0 0 as S?= CO 0 L~ t- QS+ m ma m 3.9~4 m~ a 3g5 85: 52 a3.v)o awn.& h b h co h 0 1 I I 1 .I I I .I I I 1 ( < < I c ., c + t s c c I .i f i 4. 0 S .. 7 !E a . . .- i i - - m iJi3 su 5 .G x0 L2g Y- .- iiia I; s .g "e, ul+ ENVIRONMENTAL MITWTION MONITORING CHECKLISePAGE 5 OF 5 % v) 2 2 S 0 .- c 8" S sa, &E >s E - S ov) 5s gE CI) .- 2: m L E .r .- Br rg @s E a 0 S .- .- CI 8% $E =2 Q L xL a, a, Lv)ma,x. CT a,aosz .G " 0 >a0 >ng.g5E ua, >rv)sgri qr 0 --r 2 moa, a, xa, Gum--- %a ksz 0.- ST a, n Ua,Oa,EF CTQ~ $g,a,Qr (up 0 om nit: ;22 a, a,ggEt.E zx n 'a a, CT2 5 ar T.v,F 0; c~+ %! v, a, cog '5 2 E a, -5% Q .- 3&z -0g 0.- g+'=Gs.P "S yj-L x E% L5 E a+ O a? s S -pg 2 a,cErn?m n'0rm.r a, aa,CraEJ u &Z"c E 3 a,&"-, s 0 3"--L& CTm as E' : .Es v) 0 a,a,v)€cs a,oa,.gra, gJ y- o 0-c %YE L mE (IJT W 0.s as 08.gm.G 0 SS m 'is p .- '3 zap 2::~ a man, €0 Z*S Za~ons g 3 a != .k k .r a L .- 'uzEJ .Gca, zaun ZZU,~, ~SO-~~CL g mzc ab: s 8G.k s 0 m5Qg C0.g a ox g g.g a sE o L; sa 8.paz % m .ti = a73cr-s :uza-?t S>sa, 3 c gn 0 3 s.9'4a 2 mg v) a- upFSaL E ;2$5 8% s+ .- g KS?t --g9Zs$ .- u)aLl-5 cOZ% a, (05 e;, E a, a 0s- UY x O-3 u)oc 5 nab- 5 "8s22z 5QE-E -%KO 0 FzmaLL Shargz ' a-5 oa,)=Ia, srz +Q:gga, L= L-a, .sa mk.5 omaEkg .gza,g .=a~ L:Gg ,E-" $x.=+ cc Q LC h-e 5 S .= 3 L 0 c m-E 0 a, a0 .- Lc m.2 CTO 0 '=E 3 0 a 0 S.% av)aa,aZ 7 7 " nov) am5~ av)Wd=aZ n n a 7 n n c-3 7 T c + - E .- E C a 1: : 1 (I: 5 v: (E - E .- e E (E ._ ._ c E S 2 .- 2 - 5 - E I1 u 9 a, 73 W E > ki ai > m ._ c - z ;i3 c6 5 .c CW .- 0 p ti= 5 II "a, ul- i: x%