HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-09-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 46170
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4617
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TO ALLOW A 157-UNIT APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT ON
PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ADJACENT TO EL
CAMINO REAL JUST SOUTH OF CASSIA ROAD IN LOCAL
FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONES 21 AND 10.
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS
CASE NO.: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/
SUP 98-06/HDP 98-18/CDP 98-73
WHEREAS, Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Developer”, has filed a
application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by Bons Revocabl
Trust and by Manzanita Partners, LLC, “Ownersyy, described as
A portion of the NE and SE ‘/4 of the SW ?4 of Section 23, T12S,
R4W, SBM, County of San Diego.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Mitigation MI
and Reporting Program were prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of SeptemL
hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered :
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the
Commission as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated
Declaration according to “ND” dated May 3, 1999, “PII” dated March
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
25
26
27
28
and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hc
made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
FindinPs:
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find:
a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered Mitigated Negative Declar;
environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any c
thereon, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL of the project; and,
b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitor
Reporting Program have been prepared in accordance with requireme]
California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines
Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and,
c. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of tl
Carlsbad; and,
d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial
the project will have a significant effect on the environment.
Conditions:
1. This project is approved subject to compliance with the mitigation measu
in the Environmental Assessment Part I1 for the Manzanita Apartment
dated March 12, 1999, and the developer shall implement, or c:
implementation of, the project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Progr:
...
...
...
...
. ..
.. .
...
...
... 1 i 11 PC RES0 NO. 4617 -2-
0 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
25
26
27
28
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of September,
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Compas, Commissioners Heineman, L’Heure
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
- COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
Planning Director
I I I] PC RES0 NO. 4617 -3-
0 0
- City of Carlsbac
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project Address/Location: On the west and east sides of El Camino Real, immediately SOI
of the intersection of El Camino Real and Cassia Road, in the C
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
Project Description: A 157-unit apartment complex with associated recreatiol
facilities.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described projc
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act a
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, 1
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 1
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid 1
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environmc
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the C
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 t:
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in 1
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from 1
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackbum in the Planni
Department at (760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
DATED: MAY 3,1999
CASE NO: ZC 98-09LCPA 98-06/SDP 98-19/SUP 98-06kIDP 98-18/CDP 98-73
CASE NAME: MANZANITA APARTMENTS c
PUBLISH DATE: MAY 3,1999
MICHAEL mLZI&!L,LER
Planning Director
2075 La Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0,
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART 11
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: ZC 98-09/LCPA 98-061SDP 98-19/SW98-06/HDP 98-
18/CDP 98-68
DATE: March 12.1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Manzanita Apartments
2. APPLICANT: Manzanita Partners, LLC
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMl3ER OF APPLICANT: 1155 Cuchara, Del Mar, CA 920 14
(619) 755-8911
4. DATE EIA PART I SUBMITTED: October 2,1998
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A proposed Local Coastal Prorrram Amendment and Zone Chang
to change the land use designation for the site fkom Limited Control (L-C) and Exc1usi.i
Agriculture (EA) to Residential Density Multiple, Oualified Development Overlay Zone (RDh
0) on a 47.6 acre property. Also proposed is a Site Development Plan for 157 two and thrt
bedroom apartment units, a Hillside Development Permit, a Coastal Development Permit ar
Special Use Permit. The proiect site is located at the southwest comer of Cassia Road and
Camino Real.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by tl:
project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked “Potential
Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” in the check1
on the following pages.
c] Land Use and Planning [XI TransportatiodCirculation 0 Public Services
0 Population and Housing [XI Biological Resources 0 Utilities & Service Systems
Geological Problems Energy & Mineral Resources c] Aesthetics
0 Water - u Hazards Cultural Resources
[XI Air Quality [XI Noise Recreation
n Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
[7 I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on th
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
17 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 2
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
H 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. A Mitigatt
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to 1
addressed.
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 Master Environmenl
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been void(
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed projec
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
4 12 3/49
PlannePSignature Date
&/.z-b/4 CI
Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELMS, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the Cj
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 followil
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), Negati
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
a 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.
a “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that t
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopt
general standards and policies.
a “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.
a “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that
effect is significant.
a Based on an “EN-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significz
effect on the environment, but &I potentially significant effects (a) have been analyz
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applical
standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigat
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed up
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the pri
environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additior
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
a When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily requir
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier E
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR:
a A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence tl
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
e If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing a
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, an
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In thj
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated
e 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 h;
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, ar
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less ths
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 nl
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, 1
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 tl
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attentic
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determinc
significant.
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
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)?
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly
or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an
undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing?
111. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result
in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture?
b) Seismic ground shaking?
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
e) Landslides or mudflows?
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
g) Subsidence of the land?
h) Expansive soils?
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or
the rate and amount of surface runoff! b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding?
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?
5
Potentially Significant Impact
0
0 o
I7
o
El
El
0
0
0
0 0
0
0
0
0
0
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0 o
0
0
0
Less Than
Significan
t Impact
0 0
0
0 0
0 0
0
0 0 0 0
0
No
Impact
KI KI
KI
KI
IXI
[XI
IXI
[XI
0
0
0
[XI [XI [XI
[XI El
[XI
0 n[XI OBI 0 om
0 U[XI
OB
0 n[XI
0 OB
0 ON
Rev. 03/28/96
* 0 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially
Significant Significant
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated 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?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0
groundwater otherwise available for public water 0 0
supplies?
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
d) Create objectionable odors?
existing or projected air quality violation? [XI o 0 0
0 0 cause any change in climate? 0
Less Than Significan
t Impact
NO Impac
KI
0 0 0
[XI
[XI
[XI
0 0
0 0 IXI [XI
[XI
VI. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
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?
txl 0 0 0 0 0 [XI
0
0 0 0 0
0 [XI
0 17 0
[XI lxl [XI
0 Kl
0
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, 0 [XI
insects, animals, and birds?
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
0
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? 0 txl
pool)? 0 !XI 0 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 17 0
0 0 [XI 0
0
0
0
[XI
txl
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
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?
0
I7
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
0
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels?
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
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?
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?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
facilities?
0
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significan Impact
Mitigation Incomorated
Unless t Impact
nIXl
0 o[XI
0 n[XI
0 OB
0 om
OH
0 OH
0 0
o I7 o 0
0 0
I7 0
0
0
[XI
0 0 0 0
0
I7
0 0
0
0 0 0
17 0
0 0
0
Kl 0
[XI [XI [XI IXI
[XI [XI
lxl IXI [XI IXI
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? 0 17 OIXI 0 UIXI
7 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Significan Impac Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation
c) Create light or glare? I7 OIXI Incorporated
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
potential impact area?
0 0 0 0
0
0 0 0
0
17 17 0 0
0 IXI lxl la
IXI
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
0 17 LIB
0 0 LIB
0 0 mu 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 prehstory?
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the
incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current projects, and
the effects of probable future projects)?
c) Does the project have environmental effects which
will cause the substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
0 0 OIXI
0 0 OBI
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQ,
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negativ
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)@). In this case a discussion should identify th
following on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are availabl
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fi-om the above checkli;
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pwsua
8 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed 1
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigatic
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated
refined from the earlier document and the extent to whch they address si1
specific conditions for the project.
9 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
A. PROJECT DESCRIPTIONENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Environmental SettinzlSite Description
The project site is a 47.6 gross-acres site located in the southwest and southeast quadrants of th
City. The site is bisected (NortWSouth) by El Camino Real. just south of its intersection wit
Cassia Road. (See attached map.) The majority of the site (approximately 38 acres) is on th
west side of El Camino Real (i.e., the “western portion”). This portion of the site is current1
undeveloped, but has previously contained several greenhouses on an existing nursery site. Th.
portion of the site also contains high power transmission lines within an easement which rur
approximately northwest to southeast through the site. Development of the site will be confine
to a small part of this western portion. The portion of the site which is on the east side of I
Camino Real (i.e., the “eastern portion”) is also undeveloped. This part of the site was not pa
of the nursery use. This eastern portion will remain undeveloped. Elevations on the properi
range from about 220 feet above mean sea level (amsl) at the western end of the property, I
about 330 feet amsl at the nursery facility.
The overall site contains numerous sensitive and non-sensitive vegetation communitic
(including coastal sage scrub, southern maritime chaparral, coastal live oak, and season;
wetlands) and a number of vernal pools. (See Biological Resources discussion below fc
detailed discussion.) One pair of California gnatcatchers has been observed on site previous1
so their continued presence is assumed.
Project Description
The Manzanita Apartments project is a proposed apartment development consisting of 157 twc
and three-bedroom units and related recreational facilities. The proposed development of the si1
would be concentrated on 9.75-acres in the northern part of the site on the west side of I
Camino Real. Approximately 6.42 acres of the site would be utilized for the full improvemen
of El Camino Real (on both sides) within the project boundaries. The majority of the site woul
be preserved in open space (including the entire portion on the east side of El Camino Real ar
approximately 28 acres of the portion on the west side of El Camino Real). Thus, a total (
approximately 31.47 acres would remain in permanent open space. The site has General Pla
designations of RM and RLM (Medium Density Residential and Low-Medium Densil
Residential). The site is zoned E-A (Exclusive Agricultural) and L-C (Limited Control). TI
applicant is proposing to rezone the property to RD-M (Residential Density-Multiple). TI
western portion of the site is located within the Coastal Zone. The northern part is in the Me11
I1 Segment, and the southern part is in the Mello I Segment of the Local Coastal Program.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I. Land Use and Planning
The subject property has two General Plan designations. The western portion of the site
designated RM (Medium Density Residential), and the eastern portion is designated RLM (Lo
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
is consistent with the General Plan designations. The zoning on the western portion of the site
L-C (Limited Control) and E-A (Exclusive Agricultural), The zoning on the eastern portion is
C. The L-C zoning category is a “holding” category which is applied until the appropril
zoning for a site can be determined. The applicant is proposing to change the zoning to RD-
(Residential Density-Multiple). The proposed RD-M zoning would bring the site in
consistency with the RM underlying General Plan designation and would be compatible wj
surrounding zoning and anticipated land uses. The proposed project does not conflict with a~
adopted environmental plans and would not be incompatible with existing land uses in tl
vicinity. The proposed project would include 157 apartment units. The property to the north 1
the project site contains an apartment development which is similar in scale and providl
affordable housing units. The properties to the west and south are or will be developed wi
residential uses at compatible densities. The proposed project would not affect agricultw:
resources or operations. The site is undeveloped and is not used for agricultural activities a1
does not include any agricultural lands designated as significant. The proposed project wou
not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community. The project site
undeveloped. The proposed project would be similar in design, and functionally compatib
with, the neighboring development to the north, which is an apartment development whic
provides affordable housing units. Therefore, the project will not result in potentially significa~
impacts to land use and planning. The western portion of the site is located within the Coast
Zone. The northern part is in the Mello 11 Segment, and the southern part is in the Mello
Segment of the Local Coastal Program. The project would be consistent with the applicab
Coastal regulations.
11. Population and Housing
The project site is designated for, and therefore expected to be developed with, residential unit.
These units are a part of the anticipated build-out of the City. The project would not require
significant extension of major services or infrastructure. The project would not displace existin
housing. The project site is currently undeveloped. Therefore, the project would not result i
potentially significant impacts to population and housing.
111. Geologic Problems
A preliminary geotechnical investigation was conducted for the project site. This stud
concluded that the project site is appropriate for the proposed development, subject to tk
recommendations in the study. Since no fault crosses the subject site, the risk of ground ruptur
was considered remote. Due to the soils types present, the probability of liquefaction was founl
to be negligible. The site contains no known or suspected ancient landslides. Grading activitie
for the proposed project would be subject to the City’s adopted grading regulations and th
Landscape Guidelines Manual, which would include requirements for implementation of a’
necessary erosion control methods. The site does not contain any unique geologic or physic;
features.
IV. Water
Creation of impervious surfaces does result in potential changes in absorption rates, drainagl
patterns andor the rate/amount of surface runoff. However, the proposed project would bs
conditioned to comply with all applicable City regulations governing such changes, includin;
any applicable NPDES requirements. These requirements would ensure that no significan
impacts result fi-om the project. The project would not result in exposure of any people to flooc
hazards. It also would not result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water bod)
11 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
The site is inland and would not result in any changes in currents or the course or direction (
water movements (other than minor drainage pattern changes on-site). The geotechnical stud
found no groundwater on the site. No potentially significant impacts to water are anticipate
from the project.
V. Air Ouality
Air quality impacts fi-om the proposed project would include both short-tendtemporary impac
during grading and/or construction and long-term impacts. During grading operations, son
temporary dust might be generated. This would be confined to areas proposed for grading ar
would not be of sufficient quantity to have any long term or materially significant cumuk&il
impacts. Uniform standard dust control suppression techniques would be utilized.
The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updatc
1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle mill
traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reacti-c
organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are tk
major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since tk
San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air emissions are considere
cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out as proposed in tk
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 build-out, a variel
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) measurc
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demm
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including ma:
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and :
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable an
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into tk
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project
located within a “non-attainment basin”, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is markc
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, tl
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 Ovemding Considerations” for ai
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequer
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, n
hrther environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at th
Planning Department.
The proposed project is an apartment complex. This type of use would not be expected to expos
any sensitive receptors to pollutants. The proposed project would not alter air movemen
moisture, or temperature of cause any change in climate. The proposed project consists of 15
apartment units. The structures are designed to comply with all applicable City setbac
requirements and height limitations, thus ensuring adequate air movementhirculation. Th
proposed use (an apartment complex) is not expected to generate objectionable odors.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
VI. TransuortatiodCirculation
The proposed project would generate approximately 942 average daily vehicle trips and wou
contribute incrementally to traffic and congestion on existing and planned roadways in t:
project vicinity.
In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which wou
result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludl
that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan would ha.
cumulative significant impacts to transportatiodcirculation in the region. To lessen or minimi;
the impact on transportatiodcirculation associated with General Plan build-out, a variety 1
mitigation measures were recommended in the Final Master EIR. Regional related circulatic
impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buill
out of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic.
In addition, the City has recently received its annual Growth Management Traffic Monitorir
Report. The Report has recorded an unanticipated intersection “level of service” (LOS) failure
Palomar Airport Road (PAR) and El Camino Real (ECR) during both the a.m. and p.m. pe;
hours. This potentially creates a changed circumstance negating reliance on previo
environmental documentation. Pursuant to Section 15 162 of the CEQA Guidelines a le;
agency must prepare a “Subsequent” environmental documentation if substantial evidence (i.c
the recorded intersection failure) determines that a changed circumstance exists. However, ca
law has interpreted this section of the CEQA Guidelines to not require the preparation of
“Subsequent EIR” if mitigation measures are adopted which reduce the identified impacts to
level of insignificance. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the PAR/EC
intersection.
A mitigation measure has been identified which, if implemented, will bring the peak hours LO
into the acceptable range. The mitigation measure involves construction of two dual right tul
lanes (northbound to eastbound and westbound to northbound). This project would 1
conditioned to pay its fair share of the intersection “short-term improvements” there1
guaranteeing mitigation to a level of insignificance.
The street system for the proposed project will be required to comply with all applicable Cit
regulations and standards to ensure that no safety hazards result from the design. The projec
will also be required to provide adequate emergency access as required by the City Engineerin
and Fire Departments. The proposed project would require provision of approximately 36
parking spaces, all of which would be provided on site. The proposed circulation system woul
address vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian needs. The street system would be designed to meet a
City requirements, including the provision of bicycle lanes as required, and the provision (
sidewalks and other pedestrian pathways as needed. The site does not include and is not near an
rail, waterborne, or air traffic facilities and would not impact any such activities.
VII. Biological Resources
The project site has been reviewed for sensitive biological resources by Dudek and Associates
The findings of that review are contained in a “Biological Resources Report and Impac
Assessment - Manzanita Partners Property,” dated December 21, 1998. The followin
discussion is a summary of some of that report.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
The biological study concludes that the proposed project would result in direct impacts ‘
biological resources through the removal of habitat and plant and animal populations as the si
is graded, and infrastructure, buildings, facilities, and landscaping are builthnstalled.
The project site is in a critical geographc position with respect to habitat connectivity in tl
City, Because it straddles El Camino Real, the site could play a key role in connecting fair
extensive tracts of habitat to the west and south of Palomar Airport Road with the conservc
Bank of America-owned lands to the east. The project site supports an intact southern maritin
chaparral habitat and other natural vegetation. The portion that fi-onts El Camino Real (on tl
west side) has been subject to past greenhouse and current nursery uses and is in a degradt
condition. The site contains one plant species listed as endangered by USFWS; Del M
Manzanita. The site also contains five other species recognized as sensitive by local or region,
agencies: summer-holly, Del Mar Mesa sand-aster, California adolphia, and Nuttall’s scruboal
Orcutt’s brodiaea, and ashy spike-moss. One animal species listed as threatened by USFWS wi
observed: California gnatcatcher. No other sensitive species were found. The site also contair
several plant communities which are considered environmentally sensitive, including southel
maritime chaparral, coastal sage scrub, coast live oak woodland and vernal pools. (The portic
of the site west of El Camino Real one vernal pool, which has been disturbed. The remainin
seven vernal pools are on the eastern side of El Camino Real. This portion of the site is 1
remain in open space.)
The biology report for the project site determined that implementation of the project would resu
in the direct loss of approximately 16.17 acres of sensitive vegetation, including impacts to tl
following habitat types:
a) 0.0 acre of annual grassland (considered less than significant)
b) 1.39 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.61 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.4 acre c
coyote brush scrub (considered sigmficant)
c) 1.78 acres of southern maritime chaparral (considered significant)
d) 0.1 acre of one disturbed vernal pool associated seasonal wetland habitat (considere
significant)
e) 10.89 acres of disturbed habitaudeveloped land (considered less than significant)
The impact to (loss of) one pair of California gnatcatchers is also considered significant.
In general, the proposed plan results in the preservation of approximately 31.47 acres of ope.
space, of which approximately 27.14 acres are native habitats in natural open space, includin;
100 percent (1.31 acres) of the coast live oak woodland and annual grass land, 92 percent (19.8~
acres) of southern maritime chapanal, 82 percent (totaling 0.09 acre) of vernal pools, an1
approximately 63 percent (5.79 acres) of coastal scrub. The location and configuration of th
open space land is conducive to long-term viability as it is a single, large, concentrated block o
habitat linked with offsite natural habitat. There will be impacts to habitat supporting on
California gnatcatcher pair.
14 Rev. 03/28/96
e 0
The following impacts associated with implementation of the proposed development plan woul
be considered significant:
a) Loss of 1.39 acres of coastal sage scrub, 1.61 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub and 0.
acre of coyote brush scrub. The impacts to coyote brush scrub, coastal sage and disturbe
coastal sage scrub are significant because these plant communities are considered to ‘c
declining.
b) Loss of 1.78 acres of southern maritime chaparral. The impacts to southern maritim
chaparral are considered significant because this is one of the most limited-distribution plar
communities in the County.
c) Loss of 0.1 acre of vernal pool and associated seasonal wetland. The impacts are considere
significant due to the vernal pools are a rare and declining habitat type.
d) Loss of 1 pair of California gnatcatchers.
The project design includes mitigation of direct impacts to southern maritime chaparral, coast;
sage scrub and seasonal wetland through enhancement and restoration of 0.09 acre of wetlar
under-story in coast live oak woodland. Included in the project design is the granting of a
irrevocable offer of dedication to the City of Carlsbad or an acceptable entity for an open spa(
easement over the 31.47 acres of non-developed portions of the site. Since the presence of tl:
California gnatcatcher was observed onsite, the grading operations would be restricted during tl:
gnatcatcher’s breeding season, from February 1 to August 3 1 each year.
Based upon the information in the biological study, the proposed mitigation measures, :
generally described above and included in the attached mitigation monitoring plan, would reduc
the project’s impacts to biological resources to a level of insignificance.
VIII. Energy and Mineral Resources
The proposed project would not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plan. Carlsbz
(including the project site) has no non-renewable energy resources (e.g., natural gas, oil, coal
Energy would be consumed at the project site in two phases. The first phase would be durir
construction. The second phase would be after the project is completed and is being occupiel
Energy consumed during construction is considered to be short-term and is, therefore, not
significant impact. Energy consumed after occupancy of the project would not have a significa:
impact as building construction must comply with Title 24 of the California Administrati7
Code, which sets forth energy conservation requirements for new construction. Measures relatc
to reducing the demand for automobile fuel would be addressed under the sections dealing wil
air quality and traffic.
E. Hazards
The proposed use (an apartment complex) is not the type of use which would be likely to resu
in a risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances or which would create any heal
hazard. The project also would not interfere with emergency response/evacuation plans. TI
circulation system of the project will be required to meet all applicable City requirements
ensure that emergency vehicles can serve the project site and surrounding areas. The project wI
be required to comply with the City’s Landscape Guidelines Manual (including provision t
required fire suppression zones) to ensure that any risk of fire is minimized. Therefore, tl
15 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
project would not result in any potentially significant hazards.
X. Noise
The proposed project (157 apartments) would result in some small increase in the general noi!
level in the community. However, this increase would be very small (i.e., not potential
significant).
The project could result in exposure of some people (the new residents of the apartments)
increased noise resulting from the adjacent roadway (El Camino Real). A noise study w
prepared for the project by Investigative Sciences and Engineering. The study concluded th
some portions of the project would be exposed to noise levels greater than the maximum 60-dB
CNEL level allowed by the City. Impacted locations included 1) those portions which were n
shielded from roadway noise by the presence of the garage structures; 2) second and third flo
areas (due to their elevation above the proposed garage structures, and 3) some ground lev
patios. Noise impacts to both of these areas can be reduced to less than significant by mitigatio
Mitigation would involve the use of appropriate construction materials and design measure
which would lower the interior noise level of the affected units to a maximum 45 &A CNE
and noise barriers for patios to reduce the external noise level to a maximum of 60 dBA CNEl
This mitigation requirement is included in the attached mitigation monitoring plan and would 1
made a condition of approval of the project.
XI. Public Services
The proposed project would be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the applicab
Local Facilities Management Zone plan, which will ensure that there are no significant impac
to fire/police protection or other government services or maintenance of public facilitie
Impacts to public schools will be significant, but payment of statutory fees will mitigate the:
impacts to a less than significant level.
XII. Utilities and Services Svstems
The proposed project would be conditioned to comply with all requirements of the LOC
Facilities Management Plan for Zone 21 (per the City’s Growth Management regulations
Compliance with these requirements will ensure that all necessary utilities and services can 1
provided, resulting in no potentially significant impacts to utilities and service systems.
XIII. Aesthetics
The project site is located along a designated Scenic Corridor. However, the project will k
required to comply with all applicable design guidelines to ensure that there is no significal
impact to this scenic roadway and no generally negative aesthetic effect. The project woul
include some typical lighting (for parking areas, etc.). However, this lighting will be required 1
be directed downward so that there will be no significant light intrusion to neighborin
propertieduses.
XIV. Cultural Resources
A survey for potential paleontological resources was conducted, and a report (dated August 2’
1998) was prepared by Thomas A. Demere. This report concluded that the potential for tl
discovery of fossils during future grading and construction activities was high. This woul
16 Rev. 03/28/96
a
constitute a potentially significant impact. However, the impact can be reduced to less tha~
significant by the mitigation required and contained in the attached mitigation monitoring plan
(This mitigation requirement would also be a condition of approval for the project.)
A Cultural Resource Survey and Evaluation for Archeological Significance was prepared b
Recon (dated November 1 1, 1998). This survey concluded that any remains found at the projec
site (on the west side of El Camino Real) are not considered significant. The portion of the sit
on the east side of El Camino Real was not evaluated. However, that site is not proposed fo
development. It is to be left undeveloped. Therefore, the project would not result in potentiall:
significant archaeological impacts.
The site contains no other historical resources. It also does not have any unique cultural/ethni
value and does not serve as a location for religious or sacred uses.
XV. Recreational
The project site does not currently serve as a recreation site/facility. Therefore, the project woul
not reduce existing recreation opportunities. The proposed project would create 157 ne7
apartments, thereby increasing the demand for recreational opportunities. This addition:
demand would be satisfied by two means. First, the project would include a centralize
recreation facility on-site for use by the apartment residents. This on-site facility would include
swimming pool. Second, the project would be conditioned to pay a park-in-lieu fee as require
by the Local Facilities Management Plan. Therefore, the project would not result in potentiall
significant recreation impacts.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
C. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 920C
(760) 438-1 161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Upds
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
2. Report of Preliminary Geotechnical Investigation - Manzanita Apartments, dated Aug1
27, 1998, Geotechnical Exploration, Inc. of San Diego, California.
3. Drainage Study - Carlsbad Site Development Plan SDP 98-19, dated December 7, 195
Manitou Engineering Co.
4. Traffic Analysis for Development of La Mariposa Apartments (157 Multi Fam
Housing Units), dated February 2, 1999, Darnel1 & Associates.
5. Biological Resources Report and Impact Assessment - Manzanita Partners Propert
dated December 21, 1998, Dudek & Associates.
6. La Mariposa Apartments Acoustical Study, dated August 28, 1998, amended Novemb
19, 1998, by Investigative Science and Engineering.
7. Paleontological Resources - Manzanita Property, dated August 17, 1998, San Die;
Natural History Museum.
8. Cultural Resource Survey of the Manzanita Apartment Proiect and an Archaeologic
Simificance Evaluation of SDM-W-109, dated November 11, 1998, Regior
Environmental Consultants (RECON).
18 Rev. 03/28/96
,I.
0 e
I
c
~~~
J
.".___ ~-
.. .- .
a 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 TO THE PROJECT.
-
&WzAIv;TA ~‘A~TIYERS, ~CC
c, /%L/?y 1 Plld / - L
Date Signature (?h&7VEF
20 Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL MI 8 ATION MONITORING CHECKLI b Page 1 of 5
ob
n
m
3 s
7 ob
n n ?m =v
mn
m
Z%
S? % sg Zn an
82
P
I
c/j of w m 2 3 Z
!! -
LL
M v)
a
M tu
c m N S
.-
P
w 2 2
L i, W $ a
0;
n
6
..
W
W z 3 2! t n z 0 0
lii F 3
k?
2
2
a
332?
.G+ E mrn .= ul a, E+ 2 ,o .o a
& .& z
EEa,
.- $ 2 $ €5 .- s '$ EO
.% .E" a, 5.- E LE2
bg c '5
-mu Fa2 :LC0 .E
a .u, B
v)Z E s " ^a zzg 7 SO 0 .P a, 0 ang SF v)
0-5 2s- .- a, z s p
(13 0 -0" b "s E4 5
8E .- c $2 cuse & iF" .- 3-zzn
a.Pmcq
5.GSZ 3% ssr
E 9g c $-a, a.8
g)B "0
uo
-0
SQ sav)
+
Q-g 3 c
0
OL =+a L.
u-Y c 000
- .-
+ (13E
a,v)
O-UN
0 €5 .=moa,
.= v) a,- EUa,O -ma0
$QUI 5.EZ 8
cz 'r 0 gam$ -2 E $of
a, g €.o -
'3 a,%& - P z .PO pE-=a
"I E;;;
.- KCD
E3a,5
a.5 c a
K K.2 3
c a,--= a, c 0-
F-oSm
v)
m *
6 rx
S z 0
.- c CCQ)
p!
$€ >u
E -
om C
52 2 gii
v)
.- F5
s; 6 SE 7 5g F
0-
a .=a," 8
5c .%WLu€ 2 g.EU3&
.- 4 -
'ra, ;-co=m on ass 5 "m
.I-+ .- 0 3 (13 .G k-
aS%ma
2 +
JZ m m 2 h4-I na,
a,a- I-?Z.E5 j 515+&3.0 hi .- 0
L. m 0 E o.Q%$bZ
-E~ a,+- mbnG-u 0 a,+ LC
ca.r nu ,EL-=.& fjj:,Ecz
mw m373 (=a, 0 €E
s h52"r.L 0 c 3 $2
.- E == mn+.~mLca .- - cas 04 a,u $ o 6 cu E Ccqy-a,Lu 0
0 0
L
g 0.: QfS a,r.g 0)
1.2 x
2
m 0" .- 0
gdsc > " .- "I 0 g 28 a, o sm rc- 3
2 z;;ua .L_z~pg.-
E:-& g $2
:a,rua,o a, E 0 n - a,.& 0 a, m"" 02
$.E E zq: 5s p
2
=+-u.- cI
Fa,&eUsgNm I
Q$ eca=z S a, ca 5 m
9 oqz2 v, mmGEz
2ErnmEz-Zggg 0: 2 E- .-m 0
2 kL a, m2S.E
1-Sn.2 (U =I=+ 0.-
7
1 (
I i
1
!
.. u)
c -a m Q I
.-
I&-
.- c. - /
LLI
ENVIRONMENTAL MIT 1E ATION MONITORING CHECKLIS 9 : Page 2 of 5
3 u)
m !5 ttf
1-1
~~ a,€ .- c
>u -
1-1
~~
I 5 .& 5+ .%E g
nmn 2.5 a,
a, OZSS v, 0 @mu-
&g v)T m 32 03 3 .- v).g=m + v) >w a,Ju e L 0 a,sg L EZ.z T a, a, a,Z$ mQoscog a -? h- $ * E;oKqd & 2 nFga, .%a s~z5 c m-- m& XI= om.8 a,o E Q: .- z ss C.% ms.Pcu+* cv)L mma 5 .- mrI a, a.gm~ m$S $hc-,uu L-$ v) != 2- . 5 .- a,-= 0UE.E
3 in 22 L.%v)= CAmmu-- To 2mas ozr
OK= E.$ a-u
sa ijj.."s 5s 3 0 5 0 .- 2
S 5z S= U - EZ- Er c su v) a'a,a, 3 0 E .2 .cI %a-n e: 0 ma.% E 3 c
Q 0) $"$F 3m m.- &<Ea,eX 0.- v) c z v)m -5gme e- 3 L: ,-a ~az = ?mOoa,€~S&rj = .- [I) v) mu 0 n0 os$: a, e a, 0 s-*z0 aLmEc.s*3 Uoaly: 5 2: o-g 0 (u .s g!.s E g
S,o >'t a& 3 mx v)+ 5"g =
L Q) 2 $0 v) a, 0gLP-,.5 i
L- -Lv) 'XU SZr-n 2 QL Sa 6
.- C m = .- -
v)-(z "U-W
3v)cv:
m
.C@Qa-OazmS'ma o>Q s 0 a- na maw u c m~ ~rrS F E 11 hj
- -
-
-
-
1
1
1
L
1
-
!
1
1
1 L
1
!
!
) t
!
)
t b
1
) I !
- -
..
u)
S n m al I
.-
+
.- - c) 1
W
ENVIRONMENTAL MI # ATlON MONITORING CHECKLI @ Page 3 of 5
v) 2 6 rY
S 0 .- 05 .a, E
@E >u
E
'CQ)
-
c
om cc= 0 gg z r: CT)
.- E .E '.g F
a ?E 5 .z m .44 -
*.,
&Q)
gmea, zi
ii
-
C .-
.- *a
&L go.% 5' .-QUE
nZUn
2s +a,a,rr.S 0 ST3 a, am ++omsc5 0 oLc >rL a, a, &E8 Gap
&+U.S g:+ u UugE + t:-m +g
rj".= E.: g) aog 2 2 52% a * 0 -2 a,acf) 8 $ 3s.- Q"1 a,
m a,m,Ph uI .- 3 I=3EemujU+0 ma-
QmQg)u 8 a, cU g);zs E a,: 0- ~0002 a, OLL .- €.Sa sa, 9.c a, Edg:pzgk u*+ a a,.sm 2a mgun a, X * z z.2 0 2=2=kGk8 =5 a, ax -5s m,crJ v) m s.G:*Se.&= a, 0 mo 02 25 0 0 -5 c a0a: J=+ om+o~mI=m ug*g om 2 $z%m2.c$IIs WOQa,
25 i
J -*a,"Eo a mE13 & 2 a, Os I= ~an 2 ms
u) c oa+La=.v) " %ma, maez.2 age - a, mo a Oc I=.60a,a, m s 3s- 3 - II .E .E g 2.g ms Gz L5S E.p*" pgzz mz 2 mg +mn = m- aga3pz 3 L *a,Gaosmma~m 00 EA) -13 a,= FEJ
.- cr - .- a I= I 0 ar.g ea= > u" .- m p
a ~oLo,~,ooL oaak2"mE-Fza,a, ass 2a-z m 'i3 3 02 L an 2raQ .&=smc crc ma, as g) L m--sg,o 3 mug+$ 2.2 *I=a a g5 &
O= osaaz u=gg*o omo sgm~;&~ ._
.- .- z & g; $ kg.E2.E mk= I= v) &S
= am -E g mE e . -E 0% %S?.E$ a* g; p.s 3 hE a,
o$$ %a,EJ;S& a,~oa,~m.s 22; I= om3 42 g
* .-
0 QL. m -a,G II *
+ + Q au - - am m +as II
- 3.S a, msa g 0 D Q) a.0 CfJ L Qs Q
.-
.-
as 0
* .- 5 zmTQ>cm 0 Qou.z a,c Lg.c~G~~ ezz
QCU gzy =Ek a,
mL m(ll QZ mu 3", m 3 ([3 a$5 $ *Sn QEJ o m g~ - G~ 8$$
.-+ 0e-C 3 a a,
13 a.- m .- a L .a, .Q 0
a, a az * a 111 s ?e En mm+-t: a*- sm
E% €4 is m.~ OF=< is ga, I= EJ 0 I=+Z b $4 eg g I= 02
+ut=a n~ maa am am ma- anou o ad s ET ~i QF
-aa,I=E 't>E osI= m
(.j
4
S n m Q I
0 C 0
m C 0
Q
W x
.- -
.- c)
-
ENVIRONMENTAL MI #! ATION MONITORING CHECKLI ?r) Page 4 of 5
% E
v)
Ix
S 0 .-
;3 c(
C Ea, $E >a,
E -
c
007
2L 53 2
v)
.G Q, s m'. a
5s
2; sgk 'E
E
.- +-
- .-
m c
3 .-
.- ba, -aZ"oB.~a I ma, eE
ge -p.g g z r a, LU
nnU5
v) \ 6
a, Y 0)" a, 5 aj.2
-I4 a,~~.gm a,
.=5 u 2 03 ?.=2 e a, aj. g
"C .,E(.Eg 5 E" ha a, a,n,zgU+.G v) nz;aigoz - c- o* hz: g 3qp, L v) &mZZ SG 2
E 3 ".f CnOL apg= 8L a, A .e E
m 8 m-a, 6 mk gz 3 s
I 3 su QU.v,* a,+ os Q) LU %-+X 0 a, m a, 0
c 8 a,ag SLL i= s s s (Q .- .u 0 2 pu-,Vj p$;g m 3 0 $2 25zwz E E E ogoma, Qzuoz B 'ELL?E,a, a,oc - 0 a, o Gu5o g.5 58 .G 5 $ 2 n o g -2 i 2-% 0 =5 u
*,mO~a,O>v)rm o+- 0" Eo 2 -
* v) s.2 g 3.kS E a,.g2* % g gas =o< s -3 ([J L-Gz 2.g
f$32., 3 2 a,a, a,.=a, 3
- QM cacu.~)55 m u 2 mp =
4
U
ma, a - -
.c-r m
v) WQ
a
7
I +
I
.i -
L I
( A < I 3
I
I I
(
.. fn
C
'0 m al I
.-
u-
.- c - 1
W X
ENVIRONMENTAL MITIC .r - ION MONITORING CHECKLIST.^^^ 5 of 5
- -
v) % E oz1
-
S C .- %.E GE .- &€
+
>a - E -
K 0 s:
ZE Sn
v)
-
u)?
ct
KC .- tjE
=C
q
-
u) c LC .-
.- s5 g6
2
-
e 3 v) m g I= 0 z m m c .-
I
~ -
- -r
-
!
!
!
! L
!
!
-
!
I
) I
-
) L 4
-
- -
Z 0
D s s != m
.-
E
Y- 0
I Ern 5s S&E a, L mu g g.2 ; 2 a, na.v,ua
.- mili-a s +rc
EE3Eg so p0.g 2- m-r
-0" .- 2 3 CCJ- * L * m a* 0.s 2 0 g =-a, a, a-c a, 672 k5 5-$fg~o*O = (u L-s I-+ +3a,mz,.p a,L * 0 m * g.ss k &=am mm s F &SS s 0 * ma, umr3S gnga,a,ors sOmFoa, " mo
%.E * ""5 0
m 2 a,Z x.!? mS
a, a,,,oQ Fzx 5Sp&SsoD-t:
=io Ow5 Ls2 0 a, a
as LL 53-0 Qd z 8 EZm 0.g a, c
e55.L -J'.p=50 t:
ti; DQSm L 0 E
"as a, *
2 Do m =SZ
.- QS D-5 L 0
man ZZOa, rxg
OtY-3a,a,a,sF I- DOUI"I10 0 u
uj
- -
>
I
>
- -
D Is:
S s m
.-
- a
Y-
0,
&O>>r 3m
a, L g,, -gg gms an ~LL
o+
tl a& >u- 5e 00 so F* .- *- a, 2.E
$&a,= - 38::8 ">oou .E gu a, a,
+ moa ""a m_o .$S LY-z *>
*m a,-? Z.E% gg ggl!ma, Q-Eas !=
m napY- L5
52+SF 0 'E * z-gsa, co
* =a,
CLOGS a,
a5+ao
.- s rnc a, 0
su mab m+.I!,mT aj
a,-au 0 a, a,
2 OU Q7.Z a, a, a,m v)
c L+ 0 E QO cO5s
cd
- -
- -
D t .- & a, S D
w s
.-
rc 0
I gm 5s S.SE .-.) a L 0 mu s= E
na.v,ma 2-r cn s a,
2% g
+ **E
-S m
+ a,o 2 €>
.- g e
QO
*E .o .E .G 2s m -20
-
E: 2
* ow *-
%a,+
0- as2 2 q no 0 >o a,Pa 5_"f -
35+ m m$ .P tl a, 2 E2cr :om
m+ S
.= Q -
ku co> 0 a,uz
K
- -
- -
..
u)
C -a Q a I
.-
w-
.- c - j
W