HomeMy WebLinkAbout1999-12-15; Planning Commission; Resolution 46930 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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 4693
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING
PROGRAM TO ACCOMPANY CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
RANCH AS A COMMINUITY PARK LOCATED JUST SOUTH
OF THE INTERSECTION OF POINSETTIA LANE AND
MELROSE DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT
ZONE 18
CASE NAME: LEO CARRILLO RANCH PARK
CASE NO.: CUP 99-22
99-22 TO ESTABLISH THE HISTORIC LEO CARRILL0
WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Departmen
“Developer”, has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding proper
owned by the City of Carlsbad, “Owner”, described as
Lot 111 of Carlsbad Tract No 93-04, Rancho Carrillo, Map No
13351, filed in the Office of the County Recorder as file no.
1997-554155, and Lot 1 filed in the Office of the County
Recorder as fde no. 1977-68081, in the City of Carlsbad,
County of San Diego, State of California.
(“the Property”); and
WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoril
and Reporting Program was prepared in conjunction with said project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 15th day of December, 199
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 testimol
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, a
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factc
relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Plannir
28 Commission as follows:
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
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Plann
Commission hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Mitigated Negat
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, according
Exhibit "ND" dated November 11, 1999, and "PII" dated November 8, 19
attached hereto and 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 Declaration a
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, the environmental impa
therein identified for this project and said comments thereon, and the Program,
file in the Planning Department, prior to APPROVING the project; and
B. the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporti
Program have been prepared in accordance with requirements of the Califor
Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the EnvironmeI:
Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and
C. they reflect the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City
Carlsbad; and
D. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commission, fin
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect
the environment; and
Conditions:
1. The Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the LEO CARRILL
RANCH PARK Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
...
...
...
...
...
...
...
I
~ 1) PC RES0 NO. 4693 -2-
e I)
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 Plann
Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 15th day of December 1999, by
following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Heineman, Commissioners Compas, L’Heureux,
Nielsen, Segall, Trigas, and Welshons
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
COURTNEY E. HEINEMAN, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION
ATTEST:
\
MICHAEL J. HOMMILMR
Planning Director
11 PC RES0 NO. 4693 -3-
? e
- City of Carlsbad
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Project AddredLocation: South of the intersection of Poisettia Lane and Melrose Drive,
adjacent to the Leo Carrillo Middle School site.
Project Description: Establishment. and operation of a passive community park on the
historic Leo Carrillo Ranch site.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the
. initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1)
revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the
proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the
effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment
would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City
that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this
action is on file in the Planning Department.
A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the
Planning Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the
public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20
days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jason Martin in the Planning
Department at (760) 438-1 161, extension 4515.
DATED: November 1 1,1999
CASE NO: CUP 99-22
CASE NAME: Leo Camllo Ranch Park
PUBLISH DATE: November 1 1,1999
MICHAEL J. ZBLZMMER
Planning Director
2075 Las Palmas Dr. - Carlsbad, CA 92009-1576 - (760) 438-1 161 - FAX (760) 438-0894
? 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO; CUP 99-22
DATE: November 8, 1999
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Leo Carrillo Ranch Park Master Plan Conditional Use Permit
2. APPLICANT: City of Carlsbad Parks and Recreation Department
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 1166 Carlsbad Blvd. Drive
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED:
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
Establishment and operation of a City park at the historic Leo Carrillo Ranch site. The 28 acre site is
occupied by a number of structures which are proposed to be rehabilitated and reused for cultural
activities. Installation of a parking area, limited new structures, and site improvements is also proposed.
A detailed project description is included in the Discussion of Environmental Evaluation section.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
0 Land Use and Planning (XI TransportatiodCirculation Public Services
[7 Population and Housing m Biological Resources c] Utilities & Service Systems
0 Geological Problems [7 Energy & Mineral Resources 0 Aesthetics
Water 0 Hazards 151 Cultural Resources
Air Quality (XI Noise 0 Recreation
c] Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 03i28i96
9 0
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
0 I find that the proposed' project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
H I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in ths case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
[7 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. u I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An
Environmental Impact RePomitigated Negative Declaration is required, but it must
analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Environmental Impact
Report pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided or mitigated pursuant to
that earlier Environmental Impact Report, including revisions or mitigation measures that
are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has
been prepared.
\\\dfiq
Pl&er Signature Date
111 41s 9
Planning Direcbks Sigature Date
2 Rev. 03/28/96
? e
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are
adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each
question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information
sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A
“No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that’ the ’
potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted
general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation
of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a
“Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the
City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the
effect to a less than significant level.
e “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an
effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant
effect on the environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed
adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable
standards and (b) have beenavoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated .
Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon
the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior
environmental document have been incorporated into tlvs project, then no additional
environmental document is required (Prior Compliance).
0 When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required
to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of
Overriding Considerations” has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that
the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 03/28/96
? e
0 If there are one or more potentially sigmficant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated”
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
0 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including
but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has
not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and
the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than
significant; (2) a “Statement of Ovemding Considerations” for. the significant impact has
not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce
the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not
possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or
determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant
effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the
form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention
should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined
significant.
..
4 Rev. 03/28/96
0
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 #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
land uses)? (#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
17
11. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) 0
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
5.5-6)
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)
b) Seismic ground shaking? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1 :Pgs
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
0
5.1-1 - 5.1.15) 0
5.1-15) 0 o
17 0
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs 0
5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15) 0
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..2-11) 0
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
5
0
Potentially Significant
Unless, Mitigation
Incorporated
0
a
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
UN
OH
0 p3'
OH
OH
0 0 IXI'
0
0
OH
up3
0 OH 0 OH 0 OH
0 OH
0 OH -El
0 om 0 OH 0 OH
0 NU
0 OH n[xI
Rev. 03/28/96
0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or drection of water
movements? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
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)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
(#l:PgS 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
1 1)
5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
17
0
17
o
0
17
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- IXI
1 - 5.3-12, #2)
- 5.3-12) 0 b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
d) Create objectionable odors? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
any change in climate? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12) 0
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l:Pgs
b) Hazards to safety fiom design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. fami equipment)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
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, #2)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22, #4)
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
(#l:PgS 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
5.7.22)
IXI
0
o
0
0
0
0
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
in impacts to:
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, 0
animals, and birds)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#1 :PgS 5.4- 1 - 5.4-24) I7
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant .Impact
Mitigation Unless Impact
Incorporated 0 om nm
I7 0 IXI'
0 0 El om
0
0
0
0
OB
00
Elm om
0 ON
El
0
nu
OB
0 ON
IXI 0 0.
0 om
ON
0 UIXI
0
0
ON
UIXI
6 Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24,
#2,#3, #4, #5)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
(#l:PgS 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
- 5.4-24) 0
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. W.ould the
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
proposal:
(#l:PgS 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 - 5.13-9) 0
inefficient manner? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of future value to the region and 0
the residents of the State? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
1 - 5.13-9)
&. 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 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
0
17
0
0
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
1 - 5.9-15) 0
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) 0 0 C) Schools? (#l:PgS 5.12.7.1 - 5.12.7-5)
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e) Other govemmental services? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
5.12.8-7) 0
7
a
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation Incorporated IXI
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
IXI
0
0 0 0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
on
UKI
OH
UKI
ON
om
0 H
om
OH
OB
Om
on
UN
ON om OH OH om
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant
Impact
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) 17 0 0
0
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
5.12.3-7) 0
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic hghway? (#l:Pgs
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5)
5.11-1 - 5.11-5) El
5.1 1-1 - 5.1 1-5) 17
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10, #2, #3, #4)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10, #2,
#3, w 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
5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
0
0
0
XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 0
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1 :Pgs
5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) 0
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
Potentially Significant
Unless Mitigation
Incorporated
0
0
0 El 0 0
El
El
El
ISI
0
0
0
Less Than No
Significant Impact Impact
om
DEI OM
0
0 I7
[XI' IXI
[XI [XI
UIXI
OBI no
om nu
00
OB
.I7 ' la
LIB
ClB
0 'ISI
Rev. 03/28/96
0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially
Significant
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? 0
(“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?
9
0
Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Unless Impact
OBI
U[xJ
Rev. 03/28/96
0
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
0
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA
process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative
declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the
following on attached sheets:
a) ' Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available
for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fkom the above checklist
were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an. earlier document pursuant
to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation
Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or
refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions for the project.
..
10 Rev. 03/28/96
0
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The Leo Carrillo Ranch is located within the Rancho Canillo Master Plan. In 1972, the City
Council approved the original Carrillo Ranch Master Pldproject and its associated
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Subsequent approved amendments to the Plan and EIR
have altered the project boundaries and land uses, shifted residential densities, modified housing
types, and reconfigured open space areas within the project area. Today the project is a 690 acre,. .
developing residential community which generally consists of 1,800 homes, 250 acres of open
space, a community park centered around the original Leo Carrillo Ranch site, and an elementary
school. The project is located in the City’s southeast quadrant, at the easterly City limit along
Palomar Airport Road. Included in the 1997 amendment, the Pladproject name was changed to
Rancho Carrillo. The name change distinguishes the Rancho Carrillo community from the
project’s namesake - Carrillo Ranch.
The Leo Carrillo Ranch site is located at the geographic center of the Rsllicho Carrillo
community, just south of the intersection of Poinsettia Lane and Melrose Drive. It is the location
of an original homesite associated with the pre-1900, 13,000 acre, Rancho Agua Hedionda
property which was owned by the pioneering Kelly family. In 1937 Leo Carrillo (a former
Hollywood actor, State of California Parks and Recreation Commissioner, and dedicated
environmentalist, conservationist and historic preservationist) purchased the homesite and
surrounding acreage. He rehabilitated and transformed the site into a working rancho, modeled
in an authentic Old California style. Because of the its importance in the history of early
California settlement, unique character, and concentration of significant structures, the Canillo
Ranch was placed on the National Register of Historical Places in March 1992.
In the early and mid 1990s the City Council assembled various ad hoc committees comprised of
local historians, preservationists, Planning and Parks Commissioners, design professionals, and
other interested parties to guide the design process for the Park site. After multiple committee
meetings, public workshops, and presentations before a number of groups and City
Commissions, a draft plan was finalized. The draft plan was brought before, and approved by,
the City Council in January 1997. With their approval the City Council directed staff to proceed
with processing the necessary conditional use permit and environmental review.
The Leo Carrillo Ranch Park Master Plan provides for the establishment of a passive, community
park focused around historic buildings in a heavily landscaped, rustic setting. The original park
site was 10.5 acres. Nearly 17 acres of open space, which was dedicated to the City by the
Rancho Canillo master developer, has been added to the Park. The northwesterly portion of that
open space is in an undisturbed, natural state and is considered to possess high habitat value.
Camllo Creek, an intermittent stream, transects the area. This natural resource area was
identified as a preserve area in the City’s recently adopted Habitat Management Plan. Existing
community trails are situated in this area, and in the open space area on the south side of the site.
Developing residential uses abut the site in the south and southeast. The site abuts open space in
the west, the Leo Canillo Middle School in the northwest, and an undeveloped day care site in
the east. ’ In addition to being a highly valued Rancho Camllo community and City amenity, the
Park is expected to have regional and State wide appeal as well.
11 Rev. 03128196
0 0
The physical implementation of Leo Canillo Ranch Park is divided into three phases. Phase 1
involves the installation of perimeter walls, other fencing, landscaping, and some minor building
stabilization measures. Phase 1 was started in advance of processing this CUP in order to
provide site security and is nearing completion. Phases’2 and 3 involve the more substantial
components of the project. A listing of the major components follows:
e
e
e
e
0
.e
e
e
e
e
e
Restoration and rehabilitation of the buildings and other structures on-site, including the
Hacienda, the swimming pool, fish pond and the pedestrian and vehicular bridges. The
rehabilitation includes seismic structural ’ retrofitting and fire protection measures. No
demolition of significant structures will occur.
New construction of a caretakers residence, a pedestrian bridge, two (2) bathroom structures,
and a small outdoor amphitheater.
New construction of a park main entrance off Carrillo Way, an access road, and a two-tiered
parking area with 82 parhng spaces (including 4 ADA spaces, 10 employee spaces, and
oversized vehcle spaces).
Installation of water, sewer, and drainage infrastructure improvements.
Installation of paved pathways, stairs, and expanded patio areas, including ADA pathways
and ramps.
Installation of miscellaneous site Iiumture such as lighting, benches, picnic tables, drinking
fountains, trash receptacles/enclosures, water troughs, and hitching posts.
Installation of on- and off-site signage.
Creation of trail linkages to the community trail network.
Rehabilitation of landscaped areas which includes retaining healthy landscape, removal of
deaddying landscape, and the installation of new in-fill landscape materials.
Installation of a landscape irrigation system, designed to be converted to recycled water use.
Installation of public art displays.
Phases 2 and 3 design. and construction costs are identified in the adopted FY 99/00 Capital
Improvement Program. Final ana detailed design work will begin once the CUP and
environmental review process is complete. When complete, final plans will be submitted to the
Fire, Engineering, and Building Departments for development review and approval prior to the
issuance of any permits. According to the Parks and Recreation Department, construction is
expected to begin in November 2000 and last until May 2002. According to the Plan the facility
would be City-operated for the first few years, with the possibility of management being
ultimately given to a non-profit organization.
Beyond its physical components, the project possesses a “use” aspect which is being considered
under the conditional use permitting procedure. Anticipated and potential uses and/or activities
associated with the project are identified throughout the text of the Plan. The following is a
summary:
Docent and self-guided tours of the grounds, buildings, and exhibits.
Primarily day-time activities (dayhours of operation is indicated on page 4-80 of the Plan).
It is expected, however, that special events would extent beyond normal Park hours of
operation.
Group functions such as community or special-interest . events, weddings, and corporate
parties which could be catered.
Live entertainment and theater, movies, and story telling.
Visitors center, gift shop, snack sales, and picnicing.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
Business/administrative offices and caretaker residence.
Artifact, memorabilia, and art display; ranch life demonstrations (i.e. horse shoeing,
Animal showing and keeping including horses, chickens, peafowl.
Recreation such as biking, hlung, horse back riding, and throwing horse shoes. (Although
the swimming pool will be rehabilitated, it will be as a reflection pool as opposed to a
swimming pool).
blacksmithing, throwing pottery, basket weaving etc), art and crafts instruction.
To promote a more hstorical experience and maintain the unique character of Carrillo Ranch, the
plan envisions relatively small group tours of no more than 20 and no more than 2 bus loads of
children at one time. The Plan identifies an initial program that would include 2 or 3 days a
month reserved for school children tours, 1 or 2 major community events per year, 12-15
weddings events per year, and 4 corporate retreatdparties per year. This scenario is envisioned
for the first year of operation and it is expected that future years activity and demand will
increase.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
11. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
Land Use and Planning
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
' d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Population and Housing
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Geologic Problems
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Water
a) Implementation of the project will result in the addition of new imperious surfaces to the site
such as an 82 space parking area, walkway and stairs, and patio areas, and therefore increase
the amount of surface'run-off. Given the amount of the site that is to remain in an open
andor natural state, the increase is not expected to be significant.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
h) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
i) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Air Quality
a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and
14 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon
monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfwr, and suspended particulates.
These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego
Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a “non-attainment basin”, any additional air
emissions are considered cumulatively si-gnificant: therefore, continued development to buildout
as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air
quality of the region.
To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety
of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions
for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures
to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand
Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass
transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5)
participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and
appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the
design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is
located within a “non-attainment basin“, therefore, the “Initial Study” checklist is marked
“Potentially Significant Impact”. This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the
preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01 , by City
Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for air
quality impacts. This “Statement Of Ovemding Considerations” applies to all subsequent
projects covered by the General Plan’s Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no
further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the
Planning Department.
b) No Impact
c) No Impact
d) No Impact
TransportatiodCirculation
a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the
updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be
adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be
severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control.
These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad
Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections
are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous
mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures
to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian
linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when
adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway
onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been
incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
15 Rev. 03/28/96
* e
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively sipficant because of the
failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore,
the “Initial Study” checklist is marked “Potentially Significant Impact,’. This project is
consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the
recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included
a “Statement Of Overriding Considerations” for circulation impacts. This “Statement Of
Overriding Considerations” applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan’s
Master EIR, including ths project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation
impacts is required.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for Qscussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) The Park plan was approved by City Council with an on-site parking lot which
accommodates a total of 82 vehicles. The parking lot layout and the amount of spaces
provided was approved with special consideration to the anticipated normal parking
demands, topographical site constraints, and maintenance of the historic character of Carrillo
Ranch. It was acknowledged in the Plan that there may be a need for overflow parking
facilities. At this time, however, it is difficult to prelct the need, if any. The opportunities
for overflow parking which could be provided by the adjacent school site and the City Safety
Center are highlighted in the Plan. Given the Park site’s close and convenient proximity to
residential areas, however, a potential does exist that any overflow parking might impact
those areas. Conditions of approval are recommended for the project to minimize the
potential overflow parking impact. They include requirements that the Parks and Recreation
Department or their designee 1) develop a parking management plan, 2) enter into an
agreement with the San Marcos School District for use of Leo Carrillo School parking
spaces, and 3) actively police the residential areas during high parking demand events.
e) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion
f) No Impact, see referenced sources for discussion
Biological
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion ‘
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) The potential for impact to biotic resources has been identified. As highlighted in the project
description section of this report, the westerlyhorthwesterly portion of the site contains valuable
natural habitat area which has been identified as a preserve area in the City’s HMP. A portion of
that area is woodlandriparian area, the other is grassland. The woodland is not proposed to be
disturbed by development activity, however, the higher levels of activity in the area associated
with the Park will result in a greater probability of human intrusion in to this sensitive area.
Mitigation measures are recommended that require the installation of buffer landscaping and
signage to discourage human intrusion. Another potential impact relates to the grassland area,
which is called out on the plan as “open space area”. In order to maintain its habitat value, the
area will need to be retained in its current state or planted with landscape materials which are
compatible with native species. Mitigation measures have been developed and are incorporated
into the proposed MND.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
16 Rev. 03/28/96
0
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Energy and Mineral Resources
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Hazards
0
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Noise
a) Park hours of operation are similar to normal business hours. It is conceivable, however, that
some community and private events may on occasion extend into nighttime hours. Since these
events could involve live entertainment andor the use of amplified sound, they possess the
potential to impact surrounding residential uses with regard to noise. To minimize this potential,
staff has conditioned the project that no live entertainment or amplified sound occur'after the
hour 8pm Sunday through Thursday, and no later than 1Opm on Fridays and Saturdays.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Public Services
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Utilities and Service Systems
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
c) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
f) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
g) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Aesthetics
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
17 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
c) Site lighting is needed, will be installed as part of the project and does possess the potential
to impact nearby uses. The Plan requires that lighting be designed so as to not impact the
historic character of the site. There is an additional need, however, to ensure that site lighting,
permanent and temporary, not impact surrounding sensitive residential uses and wildlife areas.
Staff has conditioned the project that lighting be designed to address this issue and that a detailed
lighting plan be submitted to as part of the development review process.
Cultural Resources
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) Technical surveys indicate the existence of a pre-historic “camp-site” containing artifacts
such as stone tools and pittery (#SDI 12,740B). The Park plan does not propose to disturb the
site. The Park would, however, promote a greater level of human traffic in the area and therefore
a greater potential for vandalism of the archeological site: The Rancho Carrillo EIR did address
the site and issue, and did identify a mitigation measure that the site be capped with fabric, soil
and vegetation and that the work be supervised by a qualified archeologist. That mitigation
measure has been incorporated in the proposed MND for the CUP.
c) The Camllo Ranch site is on the National Register of Historic Places. That status and the
importance of maintaining the sites’ integrity was considered in both the approval of the overall
Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, and in greater detail in the Leo Canillo Ranch Park Master Plan
development and approval process. The Rancho Carrillo Master Plan created a special design
district concerning properties around the Leo Canillo Ranch site, which has been implemented
through the development review process for those recently constructed projects. The adopted
Plan for the Park itself contains a number of design guidelines pertaining to building
rehabilitation, new construction, hardscape, and landscape intended to maintain the integrity of
the site. No removal of significant structures is proposed. New installations (i.e. buildings, site
furniture, signs, and landscaping) need to be compatible with existing historic structures. The
Park and Recreation Department is responsible for ensuring this aspect of the project’s
compliance with the Plan. A mitigation measure has been developed accordingly and has been
incorporated into the proposed MND for the CUP.
d) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
e) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
Recreation
a) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
b) No impact, see referenced sources for discussion.
.18 Rev. 03128196
0 0
111. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California, 92009,
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MER 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Departmefit.
2. Final Environmental Impact Report for the Canillo Ranch Master Plan, dated February 1993,
City of Carlsbad Planning Department
3. Rancho Carrillo Master Plan, dated October 1998, City of Carlsbad Planning Department
4. Leo Carrillo Ranch Park Master Plan, dated January 1997, City of Carlsbad Planning
Department
5. Biological Constraints ReDort for Carrillo Ranch Park, dated February 1998, City of Carlsbad
Planning Department
19 Rev. 03/28/96
0 0
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
1. Use of street parking on the adjacent residential streets by Leo Carrillo Park patrons,
employees, or volunteers is prohibited. Residential streets in this case shall mean those streets
which have residences fronting on them, The Parks and Recreation Department, or their
designee, shall be responsible for monitoring and directing parking activity in the adjacent
residential area during Park hours of operation and for the life of the project.
2. Prior to opening the Park to the public, a parking management plan shall be submitted by the
Parks and Recreation Department, or their designee, to the Planning Director for review and
approval. The parking management plan shall outline measures that will be taken to reduce
but are not limited to, identification of off-site or satellite parking areas, encouragement of
car poolinghdesharing activities and alternate modes of transportation (i.e. providing bike
racks etc.), public information, etc.
parking demand at the park site for both public and private events. Measures may include,
3. Prior to the issuance of any permit the Park and Recreation Department shall submit for
inclusion onto the case file a copy of a document which demonstrates, to the satisfaction of '
the Planning Director, that the Leo Carrillo Ranch Park has authorized use of parking spaces
at the Leo Carrillo Elementary School site. The document shall identify the amount of
spaces available to the Park and the dayhours which the parking spaces will be available.
4. Leo Carrillo Ranch Park hour of operation shall be limited to be between the hours of 8:00
a.m. to 1O:OO p.m. No live entertainment, or amplified sound of any kind, shall be conducted
from the Park site after the hour of 8:00 PM on Sunday through Thursday, after the hour of
10 PM on Fridays and Saturdays, or before the hour of 10 AM on any day. Except that on
one occasion during each month of the year live entertainment or amplified sound can extend
beyond the hour of 8:00 PM on a week night but never beyond 10 PM.
5. Site exterior lighting, permanent and temporary, shall be designed to minimize adverse
impacts on surrounding residential and wildlife habitat areas. Prior to the issuance of any
permit the Parks and Recreation Department, or their designee, shall submit a detailed plan
indicating the types and location of all exterior lighting for the review and approval of the
Planning Director. Prior to the installation of any temporary lighting for any event, the Parks
and Recreation Department, or their designee, shall submit a request (accompanied by
exhibits) to the Planning Director for review and approval.
6. The Parks and Recreation Department, or their designee, shall be responsible for ensuring
that all site improvements including, but not limited to, buildingkucture rehabilitation and
additions; site furniture such as seating, lighting, signage, etc.; new landscape materials;
pedestrian and vehicular paved surfaces, and drainage facilities be designed in conformance
with the exhibits and design guidelines contained in the adopted Leo Carrillo Ranch Master
Plan.
7. All site improvements shall be designed to comply with all Building and Safety, Engineering,
and Fire Department requirements. Prior to the issuance of any permit, detailed plans shall
be submitted to the to the appropriate departments for review.
8. This Conditional Use Permit shall be reviewed by the Planning Director on a yearly basis to
determine if all conditions of this permit have been met and that the use does not have a
substantial negative effect on surrounding properties or the public health and welfare. If the
20 Rev. 03/28/96
0 a
Planning Director determines that the use has such substantial negative effects, the Planning
Director shall recommend that the Planning Commission, after providing the permittee the
opportunity to be heard, add additional conditions to reduce or eliminate the substantial
negative effects.
9. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the archeological resource area identified on the site
(#SDI 12,407B) shall be capped with fabric, soil, and shallow rooting vegetation. The site
work shall be supervised by a qualified archeologist.
10. Prior to the issuance of any permit, the Parks and Recreation Department, or their designee,
shall submit to the Planning Director for review and approval a conceptual landscape plan
concerning the westerly portion of the site. The landscape plan shall indicate 1) landscape
materials will be installed along the perimkter of the woodlandshiparian area to create a
buffer and discourage human intrusion and 2) the area identified as “open space area” on the
site plan will be maintained as a passive activity grassland area. All landscape materials shall
be native or native-compatible, as deemed appropriate by the Planning Director.
11. Prior to opening the Park to the public, the Parks and Recreation Department or their
designee shall install signs along the woodland/riparian area which discourage human
intrusion into the area.
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
21 Rev. 03/28/96
e
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND
CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
n
Date ’ a, -*-T&?: Signature
22 Rev. 03128196
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl a . ION MONITORING CHECKLIST: 0 . AGE 1 OF 4
N v Q, Q, n 3 0
irj lx W m z 3 z
W =! LI
5
n m
z u S 2 - - .- 0
L L
0 m
0 a -J
lii z a Z
I" 0 W
of a
5
0:
n
6
..
Lu
W z 5 0 t a z 0 0
a a cn 7
rn
7
L a, I)
a, 0 a,
E
n
w
n 5
d > 0 nf a IL 6
SZA
.P+ E
EZW
0 tG? '-0 0 & .G z 4s
.- g 2 8 €5 .- tI 3 LOO
.v, 0-l a, mF
5 E E LE2 p 1 '2 "ow ?a!
&ie .E
a 2 .3
v)2 E 5 "v,
0 m5
+ mz
+$% 003
.- a, 7 .uzm % $6 6 o$ 94 $
QbE
a,5g & p .- 3-E 7 n v).Fmcq
5.GSZ Z% 3z a)-UN €9gs ~s Q.2
;-moa, 0 E5
m om .- 0-lS -= v) am sa,
EZWO - ma0 $ Qv) SEG a," 2 €523 cc32 earn, -: i %Y
a) 2 E.2 m.5 c E
'3 a,%& C r.o 3
- om 0-lo Pk - .a, :e co
a)!=
+E;;;
c a).v,= l"-nSrn
mcn
%!ma)
U
O3Q !=*(I)
+
Q'= v)
OL
Q+ L
%X c 000
'E -a x .- u a, .=
c 0 .- k;
27 v)
C
.- cos
mu,
z v)
E 2
IUI I II K 0
m u+
___
.- c
$5
>"-" 'c E
E -
K
Ov)
3m ZE z KC 0
v)
a? UCE Y
SQ)
v)Q)L
K.PQ) S .- bg
aQ) n agn 2; SX k$g
E= XLm Em
FE me mE c
.-
a C .-
.- Y bg. hC 6, E"
6
0 .- c 0
E a Q) .? n
2 3 v) m g
C 0
m rn
.- CI .- * 5
c-
O a$.-.-& .5 E by2 Q)-
h-n 3 $ a, .gz
Q) Qgcf g ,p KEG? $5 -0 c
pg2 Q) x= 0
02 $I)= 2
2 > Q)y5z 8
c L- q-5 az s OFJ a 0 vir E a)-.& z .Ea v) Q) Q)X 2 x ;:5 &k
Q)Eo 0 Q) a$ $ $2 $sa
F g .G E 2 ,E .E
"I.=_c- I), v) Gnu' 1?2zQ)v)m'
-v)Q)mQ) m .- m&n L.GC
- 2 a,
v)
no
m K ?jj ac
0 Y .- c .k 0 a
3 g2k-U 3 55 Q) v) L
zZm&+- mu 2 mi5z $ a-.e
0G-O 5eQ)Q)
v)ma)mQ)ov)- ~ocfrn E 2%
73 aQg 2 oz $ m LC:
e v) a -= K$E.ESg
U-O~D~+OKQ
Q) h'z F QKZC
4
-C L=U v) L LrC 0 g.Op ([IC Q) 0 m o=
EZLmE:; *n 822 cam m $$ mu Q)&bU scfgEp 0 O 06
.- P6.E E aQ)s $22
mkamQ)zFC% .s c z a, a- a.- 00%
-224 mu
Q) XQ) as 0 a, Is)
TmL 0 I) 3
a,
E
Z E %a g m E gz mcnmmo 0Q) 0
- .- rc 0 E" c CS vj u aQ) my Kc Q)
QX-rSQ)EaQ)C
a2Eo.'u 0 a,
s-n g Q) Q)zz 6-zs 2 u .Qc a 3 = $ .z-s Sg $+= Qc L" 0
m.--Q 35 g mti k as.L%58 Q) 5 Q)3Q)>S1&aa* cng 0
.- Fzb;gg2$gK$
gz sZ'8zu a m o mEa2 .- 25s 9 Q) a&" pg; a0 &r-=
.= (g Q) > 3 ,225 C 0 '0 K g."gg x=- v) L
nEa 2 0% E Z gSE
L>Q)=i
2C 0.c KUS-5 Cn Q"* Q) K m
m
L v)Pc.G.Gr=,
K - v)v)Q)-in~o Q)" Q) .= c-
I' I I1
5 %
d L - a2 55
0
- Ef
.- E$
SE $5
2 .g
3 .F
v) .=
91 .- SE
E+ u) cag 2.5-
37 2 E m-5
23 0)
rmotj
3 z .G
c: v) 0-$
v)
0
mu 0
II .- 5 ce
== f 25
g+z E E 3.:
E.2 L ng12j
zf E
>cL
a & .-
- z
5
3 0 ._
Q. m
0, c ._ b ._ - c E L. 2
I]
a
v) S 0
(A Q.
-
91 5 c a $2 ._ +2 5 j 25 .. 3 E ' mvrP
E: 6%: 5.G a m g 80 g = 5 'I. c
0 t; gz
.P .p 0, E
u- _+- 0
- - 1::; f az II b
Wl-2
ENVIRONMENTAL MIT1 _ ION MONITORING CHECKLIST:eAGE 2 OF 4 a
ENVIRONMENTAL MlTl ca . ION MONITORING CHECKLlSTeAGE 3 OF 4
(I) $ 5 Ix
C 0
m .- -
%E
>""
ca, 'e E
E -
C
:2 $g
.- - bg ?E .- ?E .- C a, .- L g ;gg
v,
aE as a ST; c
KQ
XLm Cm
LLa, 6.G a, K s.2" C c
.- c
.-
=?DL
6 m c 8%
n n Wn
sg La, arma, LEO sg kg% ET ET
3.cK g sg La,
a K .-
.- &C
a
0, .- El- 0 c C .- $6
3 g7J k m 02 0 E m re% a,- 5 ,z ai a E .E
2:; EZ9,"y m C "5-
.- -=z 5 ?.&e$= s€mE
a,== mu3 m a, v) abuz (tJ 8Z-Z m- si a, 0s
a 2 6 E% 6 a, 0 a
- $&
r 0 m m mu-o Q g- V-J~"." s? 2 0-0
v) a.- 00s 20.E s 5:s C L X" a, 0 Ozo a, g a, v) 3 %3
a,.+ v)z 0s >z v) a, a9 L- Ea, 0 03
73 a, 6U.G E oa,a,a, 0.k a5 aoa,go5€$s 'G .E L .r 9 LL F'g DO% =.=go 000 08 5 v) 2EoZ c,
=i .Q 2 ,H 12 a, an a, a- 2 23-
b=t;- xz: k $2 Cn.5 ma,.G,x--
2 +/V&a,%G tao% = z .G .I C .- E
=I &+$g.y-aZ v) & Q 50 (rJ a
Q g5.s 8 ga a& a3 a, s rs $ESgsgQZL " x _o
055 0 s s gaz CnB 8 C2 a, 8 29 Ez 92
E: o E.; q t;g.gz a .- r.2 a, 5" a a,s r-zc an a2
.- CI 5 Fa+ c 4 oDo*tma,< awl .E m
s- 35sg v, gsz -0 .- a .G&uv)m c v) m a, 0.G
f E.5 LC v)z s3.e E $2 OEEE bk; Ix a,ZZ 0-00 m 9 - g gz-0 a .= . mCv)h ZZ- a, QD,O 2 =-a p 2 2 23 mv)zl.c-~txo 2"j$ 2 m a, eJ== a, 0 0 ZU KD
cany)mQ)a e2 8- K >-= a, m5 v$
+aansu?a, 07 0 ...-D 4 .- mi5 3 ~~ygg;ca,a, a, a,S c = - .-
g ;g.e" $5: - a, "E%.$ 0 5pg c .G F OBc &c agg 5;
a, --03tso ZXtL J=a,0Da,3" Zmgflns 3 Dm L
x.- b+2 m.k ea a, b m"c v)
'E gg a, n m-a
cd G cd oj
c
z 0 .- 0 .G "
= v)D"D a, a,
%Gma,>K mm
-- -
a,= c
a,>"LO
.g &.E &y LI: a, *a--Q
.- a a, .z
a, o=c
vw. 5-K .
L > oa -
a,=
v)C. .-
a '.E 0 3 K ms 3 a, ~c C KZ m o- a, b .= .E
xa t a, 20 .=- cv 0 0
.-
v) m am- a 'f: m -$xi - v)
-
Q
$bEsmgmo a,b=
z 'E a,- m = E.E (rJ g ajna rw5-O KWGSi!?Eao va,c
m sF$?aKE oq; a E a,zc E.g - v) <:E OB av)-*L3rao L m a, a,z v) a, a,+
be L?z
a, Q)= D
3 L K.2' 2 g b.g gq m
3 oua
.-am$ .-
I= m Q 9Z& v); E%25 g.55 g v)U" v) a, .-
FD.G (rJ K v) 3 m t-n am QS~ am r
k) 5
d L
c Q)e $5
0
- ig-
._ e2
SE 0) $5
$E
.- - E22
2% 0) 3 :e .5
._ 0-*
cn 'G mm
1 .P
ao)
0
8
3 .E E+ 0)
mo 0 Do cn :e s 2 Em, su7J
CP II .- 5
K$ v) +-= f 2:
gi'ag;
zi
E 5 $:
.E .co n r 9'
Q) - z.
9K
- z 3 0
m
m
0, K
e
a
._ 6 c c E
P
P
L
- e,
cn S 0 Q cn 2 >; 0 C W 0)
.- $5
is
5.s E2 g sa 2
zpg
s 9 c
.. SE . m0r2 c c5m =
I s II 0 @. 8
.o q o)E - - 1:;: 5 Q) II .E 5
WFZ
ENWRONMENTAL MlTl a . ION MONITORING CHECKLISTeAGE 4 OF 4
+E v)
m 5 E
I= 0 a u*
.- c
%E QG
>E Qa,
E -
I= ov) s: ZE
v)
02 c I= I=a, %
I=g
Ea, n Qa n P,. :k &sg
&g 6
5e :&
+ I=
'E E .- P; ._ .- 9-t: I=+ =r
rs, I= .-
c .- +- + 0 a,
Q
Uv)C I=sm m .P E mzl
I 0 .E LO
I= as 0 a& v) m= a,
!2 .- -7
Qrs,
O.&mQS m mC .- % cqp~u $52 25 a, v) mn a, :Q sz;2 I= C'Cc ama, Y=c kS a, u5ua,-@zz~& Qv)O
0 .L F cam a,'>.ga,,3j.o~cd - g 50 m .eJ= m 0 m gmz3 v) m a,gP m Vb2'E? SI$ v)
2 g5 Q v) m-25 a,
._ do kgg4js $E? 0-0
5 .v, a, %$
57 s
v)- $95EaQ
a,- 3 :g_mI""- a, m
.& F
.w c.ggQO mb a, mz +E': m m v) m mno I=su g n" 0 'tij a &+a, xzo-- c .- cI ouu= ors_mg a, c c .g = a.= ssu 3 m 0 Go
0 a, a,-$ SEm F d, v)- 5 g3 cd s5 2 32+C g a$ L:
yc2 mm&s (TJ
x "5 a, m2i gp*pz 0 go gz.2 .- c a, gg
~ -u b F g$ ',& a, P Pg
5 CUP.&= O 6 a,.& EL m.E 0 &)s p sr 0 fr L v)
L mz g v) ge C.1Ti.E
'C a,.k 0s a,: Qm a,s
QDU mso-?II v)
Qav) a, .- a, .E?
cr 8 c- m.z E g
y .e m
E 3 Q.PF s=5s'rm a,&nlcN3g$
g *m 8 E'i 8 m
K >I=LOrnI=3 'II 0 Qa, Oy QU v)'~ 0s 5 .-
.-
.z 0-0 Q)
.-
m'E L m.Lz s m 8 on
0-=5 c -m 0
0 Qa, c c azsc L F 0.E 00CX ann o QS mo QII~ 'C a, Ob QEiijL
0 F
7 T
L a,
0 s
d L BP :;i
- E$!
:E 2:
52
Ed p
.c 5 2 c;z
.- Fij
a '= mm c .zs,
am
0 g .E
SBO .- c mu- m- 0 ._ mu m c
f g .E
2v- aCP3 $5 E;
E8: j -m ZZd % z.!
&E
se II .- b CB m 0-g ==
E
>lY
L - m 3 0 ._ 5 a m
u) c .- b .- c c E
L P - a,
m c 0 Q m
n
2? s 0 C a, $2
m 2- is Gzg@ 26g2 5.s a, m a on 2 2 Fll
; " E.2
c sag .P 'F mc ma.$ E g I1 0 - a, .g E20
L ._ .-
0 .c
*
Wb-H