Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCUP 01-01; ZONE 5 PARK INTERIM BALLFIELD; Conditional Use Permit (CUP).. CITY OF CARLSBAD LAND USE REVIEW APPLICATION 1) APPLICATIONS APPLIED FOR: (CHECK BOXES) (FOR DEPARTMENT (FOR DEPARTMENT USE ONLY) USE ONLY) □ Administrative Permit -2nd □ Planned Industrial Permit Dwelling Unit □ Administrative Variance □ Planning Commission Determination □ Coastal Development Permit □ Precise Development Plan 0 Conditional Use Permit C,upotOD\ □ Redevelopment Permit □ Condominium Permit □ Site Development Plan □ Environmental Impact □ Special Use Permit Assessment □ General Plan Amendment □ Specific Plan □ Hillside Development Permit □ =FeAteti..-e Ptlfeel Me~ Obtain from Engineering Department □ Local Coastal Plan Amendment □ Tentative Tract Map □ Master Plan □ Variance □ Non-Residential Planned □ Zone Change Development □ Planned Development Permit □ List other applications not specified 2) ASSESSOR PARCEL NO(S),: 3) PROJECT NAME: :Z..O M E. 6 -I J:::\ DU./o::rE-1 A L.-PA-~¥-. \ t\TJS t \f:1 'BA u... r \ EL O 4) BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: BAL'-F,E.L..o, lt-\ott u*:n:c) l'!??tt-AL-r pg1\)E'..f F¼. ( 'LC l'P~) 5) OWNER NAME (Print or Type) 6) APPLICANT NAME (Print or Type) C, I MAILING ADDRESS MAILING ADDRESS '2 CITY AND STATE ZIP TELEPHONE CITY ANO ST A TE ZIP I CERTIFY THAT I AM THE LEGAL OWNER AND THAT ALL THE ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. DATE ~- TELEPHONE 7) BRIEF LEGAL DESCRIPTION A'?tift!\g):\ of-LQTh r.:!i\._a:P. ~P.l-\{,,r\:Q f:,..~V,Pr \!~O \ot\t>A-\M JW't:- C'..\,~ Cf-CAQ.\..St3AP1 C.OJt-\i'{ 0~ SAl'-\-0\EG,O, cA. ~, 8'.,-2~. NOTE: A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING MULTIPLE APPLICATIONS BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 3:30 P.M. A PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRING ONLY ONE APPLICATION BE FILED, MUST BE SUBMITTED PRIOR TO 4:00 P.M. Form 16 PAGE 1 OF 2 , . 8) LOCATION OF PROJECT: ON THE BETWEEN (NORTH, SOUTH, EAST, WEST) I C Al::1,\\-\D \\\\_\.:S "QR.- (NAME OF STREET] STREET ADDRESS SIDE OF (NAME OF STREET) AND (NAME OF STREET) 9) LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 10) PROPOSED NUMBER OF LOTS J71 11) NUMBER OF EXISTING ~ 12) PROPOSED NUMBER OF l__!_J RESIDENTIAL UNITS ~ RESIDENTIAL UNITS 131 TYPE OF SUBDIVISION 16) PERCENT AGE OF PROPOSED PROJECT IN OPEN SPACE 19) GROSS SITE ACREAGE 22) EXISTING ZONING 0014) PROPOSED IND OFFICE/ SQUARE FOOTAGE IN/h 115) PROPOSED COMM SQUARE FOOTAGE IN~l17) APRDOTPOSED INCREASE IN I N' In, 118) PROPOSED SEWER '(11 USAGE IN EDU ~20) (p EXISTING GENERAL PLAN ~ 23) PROPOSED ZONING ~ 21) PROPOSED GENERAL w[r_J PLAN DESIGNATION 24) IN THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION IT MAY BE NECESSARY FOR MEMBERS OF CITY STAFF, PLANNING COMMISSIONERS, DESIGN REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS OR CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS TO INSPECT AND ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION. I/WE CONSENT TO ENTRY FOR THIS P RPOSE FOR CITY USE ONLY FEE COMPUTATION APPLICATION TYPE TOT AL FEE REQUIRED DATE FEE PAID Form 16 FEE REQUIRED JAN 1 S 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD PLANNING DEPT. DATE STAMP APPLICATION RECEIVED RECEIVED BY: RECEIPT NO. PAGE 2 OF 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/EXPLANATION PROJECT NAME: 'Z.ol\ltc 5 IHOU5Tf?IAI... £ARK· INTE_g,tll\ 6ALL.FIEL.P APPLICANT NAME: ____.C,...,1..,_J'$..,_ _ _.D""f--'C ... f'~l<-l!:::.S..,5..,_f-L,.;,;;;;D_-__,R~~=4,._1"2'-'E:;..A:...n.:.>.:::c.:..r-l'------ Please describe fully the proposed project. Include any details necessary to aoeouately explain the scope and/or operation of the proposed project. You may also 1nc1uoe any background information and supporting statements regarding the reasons tor. er appropriateness of, the application. Use an addendum sheet if necessary. Description/Explanation. :C:.t\!::rt"Au...l><Tlot-\ D~ It-1-re.li?.1rv1 BAu.. l=1E1.,t:> Ai'\o 'PAli!-1(.11-IG, Ai.ct-"TT> )'l\\"1'1tiiA-r\:. k~S CF 6AL.1.Fl~LO fl<£'$Er-11'\..'( l.otf\1l,D />-T 6AFe'i"I" l.E.l'l"'IER f>t"'I" ~61,o OR.1bH 'W,-'(, 'f~~Ecf ll'\l-1.UOFS MINIY\I\A1.. rl\.l\~1-1 ~i:'AP11-ll,i, 1~~14A110M, ft'l-\Ul-ll,, ~el-1.C..I-\~~, ~~ER~, lH Fl\:LP 6Ar-\O/a.A'( WII'#, '3ut2fAql-\£,. /\tlb INS~nor-1. OF ~\),/><l..,T Cot-l'-'2E~ f'l(G,. L<>1 (~o SPAC.I ' ~ ~Q.\"4~1 ~t.ue '?l.At-1'1'11-1£.i, t-lO ~~e"r., Ll~Hi1~ \<o. \"AR, o~ °™I~ ft,t\11.l rA~ .il-\E \3Au. F1l;.L.P M ~'( Se: 'Rl:i.D&.Ail::O I I'\ THI= n..t"'IUR.E, l'Ev~PMt::Mt aF 1~e M/½1\:.1'-Pl..AI-I foia 1\H:. lt-\DU~112l/1.L. f~~~ \<.E:C.!tf. knt.tl f k-ll..11''(, Rw. 41111 P,ojDNc.lrm PROPOSED INTERIM BALLFIELD -ft'-/-f=::::::::::::t-:~;...., COASTAL ZONE BDY. EXISTING: L-C, C-M @ PROJECT LOCATION MAP ZONE 5 PARK- INTERIM BALLFIELD CUP 01-01/SP 180(F) @ ZONE 5 PARK- INTERIM BALLFIELD CUP 01-01 ENVIRONMENT AL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM -PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO:------"---- DATE RECEIVED: ________ _ {To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASENAME: Z.Ot-\E S \"-\OUbT@-/AL.. '?1-ci",K-IWte,~\M 'BALL86,kt;> 2. APPLICANT: c r:rr C%: cAEl,..SBAo 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: __________ _.. __ 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: I HTt=:\:,.\\\I\, 1¢#!i..L1-f\'€U'> Mt? '?P..R)\))'\~ _ :lb ~ O:Ct\11£ boos Of B AtkA f.J P @, CtO-Cc S Af'ta:'\' L: t:.t\TJ=.,Js. :YY?o ;te.t::r \):\t..Luoe.5, f'Ett L uM1 , r, \Ji\SH 9 g:Ao tti 9, \t\'f\EU) M tt ';Jl)g.fkJ t:14, ~-C Pf\i.ttl\ '2t I ot f PR:\)\£;'. t R~\~ ~11otl , BkE~, ~ ~'(µ_c,. !lENLJ:\r.S ~ lb~T-0 -1,p-t 1?:t?-T ~ · ( \,..\o ~?OS~P L.\6iH-Tlt-ll:\) SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. D Land Use and Planning D Population and Housing D Geological Problems □water D Air Quality D Transportation/Circulation D Biological Resources D Public Services D Utilities & Service Systems D Energy & Mineral Resources D Aesthetics OHazards ONoise 0 Cultural Resources D Recreation D Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 Rev. 03/28/96 r ,, ENVIRONMENT AL IMP ACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 2 Rev. 03/28/96 C • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR ifthere are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (I) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; ( 4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 • Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) 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)? ( ) II. 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? ( housing, ) especially affordable III. 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? ( t) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) 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)? ( ) 4 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ cgt' □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? ( ) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ( ) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( ) b) Hazards to safety from design fearures ( 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 rurnouts, bicycle racks)? ( ) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? ( ) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? ( ) 5 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Significan t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact Rev. 03/28/96 ,. Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Locally designated natural communities ( e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) 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? ( ) 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? ( ) 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? ( 6 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Significan t Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact Rev. 03/28/96 C Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( e) Storm water drainage? ( I) Solid waste disposal? ( g) Local or regional water supplies? ( XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? ( ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) 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 which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( ) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 7 -·· -~-·-----~--·---·-~, ., .. ·~ Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Mitigation Incorporated ~ □ □ □ □ □ □-cg" □ □ □ 0"' □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ □ □ □ Q-1 □ □ □ B" □ □ □ cg/ □ □ □ 0' □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ ~ □ □ □ G' □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): Potentially Potentially Less Than No (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) Significant Significant Significan Impact Unless b) c) XVII. Impact t Impact Mitigation Incorporated 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)? Does the project have environmental effects which will □ □ □ cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES. 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 from 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. 8 Rev. 03/28/96 C 0 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENT AL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR QUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94•246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or 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. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM <IF APPLICABLE) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 c:: ENVIRONMENTAL IMP ACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. 3 Rev. 03/28/96 C .,__..,, • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR ifthere are mitigation measures to clearly rednce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (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 Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; ( 4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. 4 Rev. 03/28/96 C Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations ( e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? (#1: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)? (#1:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections?(#! :Pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly ( e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? (#1:Pgs 5.5-1 - 5.5-6) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? (#1:Pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1.15) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 5.1-15) e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) I) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) g) Subsidence of the land? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) h) Expansive soils? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15) i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#1:Pgs 5.1-1 - 5.1-15) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? (#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2- 11) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality ( e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) 5 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact [8J □ [8J □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ [8J □ [8J Rev. 03/28/96 ,-. --~ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water D body? (#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water D movements? (#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either D through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? (#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? D (#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (#1:Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-D 11) i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater D otherwise available for public water supplies? (#1 :Pgs 5.2-1 -5 .. 2-11) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an D existing or projected air quality violation? (#1:Pgs 5.3- 1 -5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#1:Pgs 5.3-1 D -5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause D any change in climate? (#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#1:Pgs 5.3-1 -5.3-12) D VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) b) Hazards to safety from design features ( e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? (#1 :Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (#1:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) 6 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ ~ □ □ ~ □ ~ □ ~ ~ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ~ Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). c) Locally designated natural communities ( e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#1:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? (#1:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#1:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24) VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13-1 -5.13-9) b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 5.13- 1 -5.13-9) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & 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)? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? (#1:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#1:Pgs 5.9-1 -5.9- 15) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1:Pgs 5.9- 1 -5.9-15) 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? (#1:Pgs 5.12.5-1 -5.12.5-6) b) Police protection? (#1:Pgs 5.12.6-1 -5.12.6-4) c) Schools? (#1:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-5) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ( ) e) Other governmental services? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 5.12.8-7) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: 7 Potentially Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ ,, .. , -Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than Significant Impact □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ No Impact Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact a) Power or natural gas? (#1:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.1-5 & D 5.13-1 -5.13-9) b) Communications systems? ( ) D c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution D facilities? (#1:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -5.12.3-7) d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#1:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -5.12.3-7) D e) Storm water drainage? (#1:Pg 5.2-8) D t) Solid waste disposal? (#1:Pgs 5.12.4-1 -5.12.4-3) D g) Local or regional water supplies? (#1:Pgs 5.12.2-1 D 5.12.3-7) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#1:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) b) Have a demonstrated negative aesthetic effect? (#1:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) c) Create light or glare? (#1:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#1:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8- 10) b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#1:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8- 10) c) Affect historical resources? (#1 :Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#1 :Pgs 5.8- 1 -5.8-10) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (#1:Pgs 5.8-1 -5.8-10) XV.RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? (#1:Pgs 5.12.8-1 - 5.12.8-7) b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#1:Pgs 5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 8 □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Less Than No Significant Impact Impact □ r8J □ r8J □ r8J □ r8J □ r8J □ r8J □ r8J □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ □ Rev. 03/28/96 C Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact □ □ ··-Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Impact Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated □ □ ~ □ □ 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 from 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. 9 Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION LAND USE AND PLANNING ' The proposed interim ballfield is consistent with the zoning ordinance which allows assemblages of people in any zone but residential with a conditional use permit; and also allows public facilities in any zone with a conditional use permit. Since the future park site is located in the Carlsbad Research Center (CRC) Specific Plan which designates industrial/office uses for the site, a specific plan amendment (SP 180-F) is concurrently being processed with the park CUP to designate the subject lot as a park site. Given the proposed specific plan amendment, the project would be consistent with all applicable land use designations and regulations. Since the site is a pre-graded industrial lot, no agricultural resources are affected. POPULATION AND HOUSING The project will not affect the city's housing stock since the project involves an interim ballfield and does not involve any residential components. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS No geologic problems exist onsite since the lot is a portion of a larger industrial subdivision that underwent environmental review and geotechnical studies as part of its final map and mass grading approval. No unique geologic features are associated with the site or the immediate area. WATER Since the project is proposed for a pre-graded site, there will be no impacts to surface, subsurface or flood water flows across of through the site. The site is ready for industrial building development, so the ground preparation necessary for ballfield/park use will not create any characteristics of the area's ground water or surface water flow. AIR QUALITY: In 1994 the City prepared and certified an EIR which analyzed the impacts which will result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concludes that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts in the form of increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to build-out 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 build-out, 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 10 Rev. 03/28/96 -mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. CIRCULATION: In 1994 the City prepared and certified a Master EIR which analyzed the impacts which would result from the build-out of the City under an updated General Plan. That document concluded that continued development to build-out as proposed in the updated General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate build-out 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 build-out. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan build-out, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: I) 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. Parking: With regards to the proposed parking plan for the interim ballfield, a 20-space parking lot is proposed by the Parks and Recreation staff. They have a standard of 23 parking spaces for a standard-sized baseball field. Since this is a slightly modified/reduced baseball field, Parks staff feels that the proposed 20 spaces is adequate. In addition, since a conditional use permit is involved, monitoring of the project will occur and any significant shortfalls with the project (including parking) can be addressed and resolved in the CUP context. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No biological resources occur on this site because it is a pre-graded lot located within a larger industrial office subdivision. All biological resources impacts were assessed and mitigated as necessary with the approval of Carlsbad Tract 85-24 which created the industrial lots. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES The development of a park on the site, interim or otherwise, would not involve mineral extraction or the use in any use of mineral resources. HAZARDS The use of the site as a park will not introduce hazardous substances or material onto the site; nor will it increase the risk of explosion since only park uses are proposed. Additionally, the use of the site as a park will not expose the park users to any potential known health hazards. NOISE There are no significant noise generating uses in the area so as to negatively impact park users. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 Noise from the park will be insignificant since the nearest residential units are across the Camino Hills street system and the site is immediately surrounded by existing industrial office buildings. PUBLIC SERVICES The use of the site as a park will not preclude the full scope of city services being available for the site or the surrounding area in general. In addition, the use in and of itself, will not generate an extraordinary demand for any particular city service or facility. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS The project will require any new or modified utility or service systems. No natural gas or power requirements are involved. The site is not proposed for lighting so those needs do not exist. The northeast comer of the site is already developed with a storm flow catch basin so no new water drainage improvements are necessary. No communication systems are involved and a portable restroom is proposed which will be serviced in a standard manner eliminating the need for a septic system or modified sewer system. AESTHETICS The site is not located on or adjacent to any scenic resources. The development of the site as a park will not create an adverse environmental or aesthetic impact. Since the project does not propose lighting, there will be no creation of light or glare impacts. CULTURAL RESOURCES Since a pre-graded site is involved, all environmental resources have already been assessed and mitigated as necessary with the approval of Carlsbad Tract 85-24 including cultural resources. RECREATIONAL The provision of a park at the subject site will add to the recreational opportunities in the immediate area. Recognizing that the need for an interim ballfield on this future park site is triggered by the removal of the ballfield at the Safety Center, the Safety Center's long term plans did not involve the retention of that field. This project is intended to provide the replacement ballfield for the future removal of the Safety Center field, therefore there will be no significant impacts to recreational opportunities. 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 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008, (760) 602-4600. I. Final Master Environmental Impact Report (Source #1) for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01 ), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department. 12 Rev. 03/28/96 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES {IF APPLICABLE) NIA ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM {IF APPLICABLE) NIA 13 Rev. 03/28/96 APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. Date Signature 14 Rev. 03/28/96