55th seiaa meeting- 03.09.2012

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

1/64

Proceedings of the 55th

SEIAA meeting held on 3rd

September 2012

at Room No. 709, M.S Building, Bangalore.

Members present: -

1. Dr. H.S. Ramesh - Chairman (SEIAA)2. Dr. H.R. Raj Mohan - Member (SEIAA)3. Sri Kanwerpal - Member Secretary (SEIAA)The Chairman welcomed the members and initiated the discussion. The following subjects

were discussed and decisions were taken as there under.

Deferred Projects:

Construction Projects:

1. Construction of New Laboratory Complex (NLC) at NCBS Campus, GKVK, BellaryRoad, Bangalore by M/s National Centre for Biological Sciences (SEIAA 124 CON 2011)

It is a proposal for construction of New Laboratory Complex with Basement + Ground floor+ 3 upper floors (built up area-21,270 Sq.m.) and sport cum dinning complex with basement +

ground floor + 1 upper floor (1445 Sqm Built up area) on an area of 80967 Sq.m and the total

built up area of 22,715 Sq.m The total water requirement is 150 KLD and the investment is Rs.80crores. NCBS, TIFR comes under the aegis of Department of Atomic Energy, Government of India.

Project Details: (a) Land: Total plot area: 80,967 Sqm; Total built up area: 21,270 Sqm; The

project consists of new laboratory complex with basement + ground floor + 3 upper floors and sport

cum dinning complex with basement + ground floor + 1 upper floor. (b) Landscape area: 68,988Sqm. (c) Water Requirement: Total water requirement is 253 KLD for existing and proposed

facilities. Sourced from BWSSB. (d) Soil: Total excavated soil: 39,964 Cum. 4,000 Cum will be

used for backfilling and landscape development. The balance 35,964 Cum will be used for filling up

low laying areas in the GKVK campus (e) Sewage: Total quantity generated: 135 KLD treated inthe existing STP of design capacity of 200 KLD. (f) Solid waste: Total generated: 400 Kg/day;

organic waste will be treated in organic converter. Inorganic waste of will be sent for recycling;

sludge- 20 Kg/day will be used as manure. (g) Power Requirement: Total Requirement: 41 KWfrom BESCOM; Power Backup 2X500 KVA DG sets.

Other details: Rain Water Harvesting proposed. CFE for expansion issued by KSPCB on

4.01.2011. Authorization for hazardous waste and biomedical waste handling is also obtained from

KSPCB on 22.09.2011 and 30.01.2010 respectively.

The subject was placed in the 75th

SEAC meeting held on 14/15.10.2011 and the subject was

deferred since the circulation material was not received by some of the members and also the

project proponent remained absent without prior intimation in response to the meeting notice sent.

The subject was discussed in the SEAC meeting held on 6th

January 2012. The proponentpresent explained the project. The proponent informed that the laboratory complex is in advanced

stage of construction and they have come for environmental clearance after KSPCB served notice to

them. Out of 21,270 Sqm built up area 19,864 Sqm is taken up already. The Committee observedthat this as a case of violation of the provision of EIA Notification, 2006. The proponent informed

that the radiation exposure in R&D will be taken care of by BARC. The proponent informed that

human biological research such as stemcell and brain cell and no clinical activities are done in the

R&D facility. He informed that no additional water from BWS&SB is required as the existingstored water is sufficient for meeting expansion requirement.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

2/64

55th SEIAA Meeting Proceedings Dated 3rd September 2012

2

The SEAC considered this proposal as a construction project only and observed that theproject proponent has to obtain the necessary approvals from the competent authorities for R&D

activities.

After deliberation, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for issue ofenvironmental clearance after obtaining the following information from the proponent with a

condition that the project proponents shall obtain necessary clearances from the competentauthorities.

1.NOC from BWS&SB.2.Plan for disposal of excess excavated earth along with MoU.3.Calculation for energy savings.

The proponent has submitted the information vide letter dated 06.02.2012.

The Authority perused the information submitted by the proponent and took note of therecommendation of the SEAC during the meeting held on 08.03.2012.

The Authority observed that it is a case of violation of the provisions of EIA Notification,2006. An area of 19,864 Sqm is already reported to have been built.

The Authority therefore decided to get the following information, for further consideration

of the proposal:(a)Explanation as to why action should not be initiated for starting the construction activity

without Environmental Clearance required as per EIA Notification, 2006

(b)Submission of resolution of the Board of Directors as required under the OfficialMemorandum No.J-11013/41/2006-IA.II(I) dated 16

thNovember 2010 issued by Ministry of

Environment and Forests, Government of India.

(c)Plan for disposal of excess excavated earth with details and present land use of the siteproposed to be used for disposal of the excess excavated earth.

(d)NOC / sanction letter from the BWS&SB for supply of 3 lakh litres of required water.(e)Clarification as to whether the proposed site falls in the GKVK Biodiversity Heritage Site.(f) Quantification and characteristics of wastes that would be generated in the proposed

activity.

(g)Proposal for safe disposal of waste including plan to contain radioactive contamination.The proponent has submitted the information on 10.04.2012.

The Authority perused the information submitted by the proponent during the meeting heldon 09.05.2012.

The Authority noted that the project has already been taken up and is in completion stage

and the reason provided for taking the work without prior Environmental Clearance is unacceptable.The Authority after discussion, decided to consider the proposal after the receipt of information

with regard to whether the construction activity started with plan sanctioned for an area of less than20,000 Sqm if any.

The Authority also decided to invite the proponent to the meeting.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

3/64


3

The proponent has submitted the information. The proponent was invited to the meeting.

The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent during the meeting held

on 6th

July 2012.

The proponent remained absent. The Authority observed that the resolution of the board ofdirectors does not spell out the reason for undertaking the construction activity without prior

Environment Clearance (EC).

The Authority opined that the concern expressed by the Authority vide letter dated

16/5/2012 has not been satisfactorily addressed. The Authority after discussion decided to provideone more opportunity to the proponent for furnishing the required information for further

consideration. The Authority also decided to invite the proponent to the next meeting.

The proponent has submitted the information vide letter dated 24.07.2012. The proponentwas invited to the meeting.

The proponent appeared before the Authority and briefly explained about the proposed

project.

The proponent submitted that the proposed construction consists of two buildings of whichdining cum sports complex with the built up area of 1,406 Sqm have been completed and new

laboratory complex building with a built up area of 19864 Sqm is in the finishing stage. The

proponent further submitted that they had not applied for Environmental Clearance under EIANotification, 2006 as the built up area of individual buildings did not exceed 20,000 Sqm which is

the threshold limit under EIA Notification, 2006. However, as the Karnataka State Pollution Control

Board suggested that the built up area of both the buildings have to be considered which will come

to 21,270 Sqm, necessary application were filed before Authority for Environmental Clearance

under EIA Notification, 2006.

While responding to the query raised by the Authority, whether the constructions have been

undertaken with prior approval of the plan by the competent authority, the proponent submitted that

approval has been obtained from NCBS which is sub ordinate body to the Department of AtomicEnergy under which the institution works. However, no documents with regard to the approval were

available on the records. The Authority also observed that the construction has not been undertaken

with the plans approved either by BDA or BBMP.

The Authority after discussion, decided to issue Environmental Clearance subject to

submission of the following information:

(a)Plan duly approved by the NCBS for the proposed buildings.(b)Commitment to obtain approval of plan from concerned urban local body as applicable.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

4/64


4

2. Commercial Complex with Hotel at Sy.No.39, 39/1, 39/2, 40 and 41, V.V.Puram, WardNumber 50, T.Mariyappa Road, 2

ndBlock, Jayanagar (Near Ashoka Pillar), Bangalore

by M/s Chandra Sagar Enterprises (SEIAA 39 CON 2011)

It is a proposal for construction Commercial building with retails, shops, business, mall and

Hotel with 146 rooms in 3 basement+Ground+ 12 upper floors+Terrace on an area of 5819.50Sq.m and the total built up area is 29,934.31 Sq.m. The total water requirement is 150 KLD and the

investment is of Rs. 30 crores. The total parking provided is for 272 cars.

Project details: Total site area: 5,819.50 Sqm. Total Built up area: 29,934.31 Sqm. The

project consists of commercial building with retails, shops, business, mall and hotel with 146 roomsin 3 basement + ground floor + 12 upper floors + terrace floor. Water Requirement: 91 KLD

(Operation Phase) met through BWSSB (NOC issued on 5/4/2008). Waste Water Generation and

Treatment Facility: 72.8 KLD of waste water generated and it will be treated in STP of 80 KLD.

Power Requirement: 3000 KVA; Alternative Power Supply: 3 X 1000 KVA DG sets. Solid Waste:Total 348.6 Kgs/day generate out of which 139.44 KG/day of organic waste will be converted to

organic manure; 209.16 Kg/day of inorganic waste will be disposed to authorized recyclers andBBMP; STP sludge will be used as manure within the premises; Excess earth: The quantity ofexcavated earth material as estimated around 60,000 cum will be reused/recycled for back

filling/fill-up the low lying areas/ sub base work for roads & pavements within the project site.

Landscape: 1908.75 Sqm (32.79%) proposed; Parking facility: Car Parking provided in 3 basements

and surface parking for 280 Nos. Surrounding details: Lalbagh -1 Km; Lalbagh Lake- 1 Km; Otherdetails: rainwater harvesting proposed.


July 2011. The proponent and

environmental consultant present explained the project. The proponent informed the following

points before the Committee.

Greenbelt coverage is only 26% which is less than 33 % suggested. The excess water of26 KLD is used for HVAC as it is commercial complex.

The excess earth is utilized on their own land. The traffic expert informed that the existing LoS for the T.Mariyappa Road is C & the

same for modified & projected is D - D.

The Committee suggested to enhancing the landscape coverage on earth by reducing surfaceparking and re-submit the landscape plan.

After deliberation, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for issue of

environmental clearance after obtaining the following information from the proponent.1. Rework on enhancement of landscape area.2. Rework on the water balance chart with calculation.3. Social commitment plan for Rs. 5 Lakhs, as committed.

The proponent has furnished the information on 11.08.2011.

The Authority perused the information submitted by the proponent and took note of the

recommendation of the SEAC during the meeting held on 26.08.2011. The Authority observed that

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

5/64


5

the proposed project site is located in fully developed area. However the details of existingstructures in the proposed site are not forthcoming from the proposal. The Authority further noted

that the proposal involves excavation for three basements which requires abundant precaution and

safety measures to the adjacent/abutting buildings and the same is not forthcoming from the

proposal.

After discussion the Authority decided to get the following information for further

consideration:(a)Details of the existing structures in the proposed project site.(b)Details of demolition if any and proposal of safe disposal of debris along with details of

the land proposed to be used for such disposal.(c)Plan for safety of the structures in the adjacent plot as it involves excavation upto three

basements.

(d)Measures proposed to ensure normal air circulation and cross ventilation in 3 basementsproposed.

(e)Emergency Evacuation plan based on National norms.(f) Impact on traffic and internal circulation due to proposed mall activities is in already

congested areas.

The Authority also decided to invite the proponent to the meeting of the Authority.

The proponent has furnished the information on 30.01.2012. The proponent was invited to

the Authority meeting.

The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent in its meeting dated

08.03.2012. The proponent appeared before the Authority and explained briefly about the project.

The Authority observed that the proponent have taken almost five months time to furnish thereply and sought to know the reason for this inordinate delay. While replying the proponent

submitted that there was slump in the market and therefore it was not actively considered. Hefurther submitted that now they want to pursue the matter with regard to Environmental Clearance.

While examining the proposal the Authority observed that the reply furnished to the queries

raised by the Authority is very sketchy and have not answered basic questions. In reply to safetynorms the details of the measures proposed by the proponent are not furnished.

The proponent while responding with regard to the safety aspects of the neighbouringstructures in view of the excavation for the proposed three basements, informed that they have

planned sheet piling to ensure safety of the adjacent buildings. The proponent further stated that

neighbouring structures are far of and have a least distance of 500 meters from the area proposed to

be excavated and therefore not much of impact is anticipated.

The Authority opined that no information on angle of repose of soil is provided and thereply is vague without details on distance on each building. As the project site is located amidst a

fully developed area and the structures are quite old this needs a scientific and technical assessment.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

6/64


6

After discussion, the Authority decided to send the proposal back to SEAC to appraise theproposal in the light of O.M. No. 21-270/2008- IA.III dated 7th February 2012 issued by the

Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India with the following additional

information:

i) Adequacy of safety measures proposed for excavation with angle of repose of soil.ii) Emergency evacuation plan proposed including the details of facilities and action

plan.

iii)Details of parking facility worked out based on MoEF guidelines along with facilityfor parking of buses and trucks.

iv)Proposal for service road is a must as direct entry from the proposed commercialcomplex would affect the traffic on the public road.

v) Modification of the layout plan incorporating the criteria laid down by the Ministryof Environment and Forests, Government of India vide Official Memorandum No.

21-270/2008- IA.III dated 7th

February 2012 and with internal roads of appropriate

width.vi)Proposal for in-house scientific management and disposal of solid waste including

adoption of bio-converter, as handing over the waste to the BBMP would create anadditional negative externality on the environment.

vii)Details of land proposed to be used for disposal of demolition debris and excessexcavated earth with the present land use and ownership.

viii)Proposal for increasing the greenbelt to at least 33%.ix)Distance from the nearest fire station.

The subject was placed in the 82nd

SEAC meeting held on 27/28.04.2012 and the

Committee discussed the decision of the SEIAA proceedings dated 08.03.2012 and decided to

obtain details as per O. M. dated 07.02.2012 and the additional information sought by the SEIAA

from the project proponent.

Accordingly the proponent has submitted his replies on 18.05.2012 in response to this officeletter dated 14.05.2012. The height of the proposed building is 27.3 m and the RoW of the existing

road in front of the project site is 15.10 m and the nearest Fire Station is at a distance of 3.5 km

away from the project site (also submitted vide letter dated 24.05.2012)

The Committee perused the replies furnished by the project proponent and accepted the

same in the meeting held on 26th

May 2012. After deliberations decided to recommend the proposalto SEIAA for issue of environmental clearance.

The Authority perused the proposal and took note of the recommendation of the SEACduring the meeting held on 6th

July 2012.

The Authority opined that the critical issues that have been raised by the Authority have notbeen addressed / commented by the SEAC. No critical analysis of the information submitted by the

proponent is forthcoming from the proceedings. The Authority opined that the replies submitted by

the proponent are not acceptable and convincing, considering the location of the project.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

7/64


7

The Authority after discussion, decided to get the following information for furtherconsideration:

(a)Site specific safety measures proposed for excavation for three basements.(b)Safety and ventilation in the basement area.(c)Provision for service road without which the project would create traffic problem in the

public road as it is a project of multiple activities and is proposed already in congested area.

(d)Emergency evacuation plan proposed including the details of facilities and action plan.(e)Plan for increasing the greenery to at least 33%.


The proponent has submitted the information vide letter dated 30.07.2012. The proponent

was invited to the meeting.

The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent. The proponent appeared

before the Authority and briefly explained about the proposed project.

The Authority opined that the concerns expressed by the Authority with regard to safety

aspects, traffic management and the overall environmental sustainability of the project have notbeen properly addressed. It was further noted that the suggestion made by the Authority with regard

to making provision for a service road has also not been incorporated. Reduction in the number of

basements and making provision for the parking in the stilt and mezzanine floors also not been

considered by the proponent. Details with regard to designing the width of sheet piling are also not

forthcoming. The document does not reveal whether the lateral pressure have been taken intoaccount while designing the sheet piling.

The Authority noted that the provision made for establishment of STP and solid waste

management facility is inadequate and the location is not appropriate as it would create

inconvenience to the neighborhood. The Authority further noted that consequent to the proposeddevelopment, the entire plot will become impervious and result in flooding due to increased flow of

storm water.

In view of the above facts, the Authority after discussion opined that the proposal in the

present form is not environmentally sustainable. The Authority therefore decided not to accord

Environmental Clearance for the proposed activity in the present format. The project proponent is atliberty to revise the proposal accordingly if interested.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

8/64


8

3. Purva Sky Wood Terraces, Development of Residential Apartment, Sy. No. 100/1 to 4,100/6, 100/7, 101 and 216, Kudlu, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore by

M/s Puravankara Project Ltd. (SEIAA 43 CON 2012)

It is a proposal for construction of Residential Apartment of 104 Units in 3 towers with

Basement + Ground floor + 8 Upper floor on an area of 18918.94 Sq.m (including kharab land of101.17 Sqm) and the total built up area is 35,347.93 Sq.m. The total water requirement is 70.20

KLD and the investment is of Rs. 71.91 crores. The total parking provided is for466 cars.

M/s. Purvankara Project Limited have applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) from

SEIAA for their new proposed Purva Sky Wood Terraces Residential Apartment project at Sy.

No. 100/1 to 4, , 100/6, 100/7, 101 and 216, Kudlu, Sarjapura Hobli, Anekal Taluk, Bangalore,under 8(b) of Schedule of EIA Notification, 2006 under category-B. Total project cost is Rs. 71.91

Crores. Project comes under BBMP Limits.

Project Details: Land: Total plot area: 18918.94 Sqm; Total built up area: 35347.93 Sqm.Project consists of 333 residential flats with Tower 1 with Basement + Ground Floor + 26 Upper

Floors; Tower 2 consists of Basement + Ground Floor + 25 Upper Floors & club house withGround Floor + 2 Upper Floors. Landscape area: 9487.45 Sqm (50.41% of plot area). WaterRequirement: Total water requirement is 72.8 KLD; Fresh water requirement: 54.6 KLD, sourced

from BWSSB. Excavated Earth: Total Quantity of excavated earth: 13611.4 Cum; backfilling

quantity: 18942 Cum (the excavated soil will be used for backfilling retaining wall sides and road

leveling and formation works). Sewage: Total quantity generated: 67.39 KLD, treated in proposedSTP of design capacity 75KLD; Sludge generated: - 10 kg/day used as manure. Municipal Solid

Waste: Total generated: 156 kg/day; Organic waste: 93.6 kg/day treated in organic convertor and

product used as manure. Inorganic waste: 62.4 kg/day will be sent for recycling. Power: TotalRequirement: 1996 KW from BESCOM; Backup Power: DG sets of 3X500 KVA & 1X 250 KVA

Parking: 466 Numbers. Other details: Rain Water Harvesting is proposed.

The subject was placed in the 83rd SEAC meeting held on 25/26.05.2012 and the subject

was deferred as the proponent has requested vide letter dated: 18.05.2012 for deferment in view of

his revision of proposal.

The subject was appraised in the SEAC meeting held on 22nd

& 23rd

June 2012. The

proponent and environmental consultant present explained the project. The proponent informed thatthe height of the building is 29.20 m and the RoW is 15 m in front of the project site. The nearest

fire station: 4 km away from the project site. The Committee noted that a nallah is located beside

the project which reaches Haralur Lake. The consultant informed that the buffer zone of 15 m wideis provided towards nallah and 30 m wide buffer zone is provided from the lake boundary as per the

zoning regulation of BDA. The Committee requested the proponent to submit village map since the

proponent informed that the lake is not shown in the CDP 2015 of BDA and survey numbersalready given.

After deliberation, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for issue

of environmental clearance after obtaining the following information from the proponent.1. Village map showing the project area.2. Revised water balance chart showing evaporation loss for STP with calculation.3. Social commitment plan for Rs. 7 Lakhs on letterhead as committed.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

9/64


9

The proponent has furnished information vide letter dated 07.07.2012.

The Authority perused the reply submitted by the proponent and took note of the

recommendation of the SEAC during the meeting held on 6th

August 2012.

The Authority after discussion, decided to get the following information for furtherconsideration of the proposal:

(a)Clear source of water and NoC from BWS&SB.(b)Details of lake and nallah duly marking it on the village map vis a vis project site with

distance of the project site from the lake boundary and nallah.

(c)Measures proposed for protection and maintenance of nallah to ensure that the drainagepattern is not altered.

(d)Details of kharab land duly marking it on the village map and layout plan with itspresent land use.

(e)Plan to ensure that Harluru lake is not polluted due to project activities either duringconstruction or operation.

(f) Plan to ensure that the project will have a minimum of 33% greenbelt with heavyfoliage tree species.(g)Revised specific social commitment plan with activity, budget and time frame.






The Authority noted that a copy of the NOC issued by the BWS&SB has been produced.

The proponent explained location of the nallah and the lake with respect to the project site.

The proponent informed that out of the total land only in Sy. No. 216, a kharab land of 3 Guntasexist of which only one Guntas is in the project site and the rest is in the adjacent land. The

Authority observed that the maps and the drawings submitted are not properly indexed.

The proponent submitted that project site is abutting Haralur lake whereas the project site is

in Kudlu village. Therefore both the lake and the project site cannot be marked on the same map.

The proponent further submitted that a road actually measuring 21 meters but shown as 15 metersin the CDP exist between the lake and the proposed project site. The proponent informed that a

total buffer of 30 meters is maintained from the lake boundary without any development.

The proponent informed that a buffer of 15 meters from the centre of nallah is proposed to

be maintained without any permanent structure.

The Authority after discussion, decided to issue Environmental Clearance subject to

submission of the following information:

(a)The copy of village map duly marking the project site with proper index.(b)Sketch showing the kharab land in the project site.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

10/64


10

4. Expansion of Mantri Development at No.1. 2nd Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore byM/s. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (SEIAA 91 CON 2010)

It is a proposal for expansion of Mantri Development by developing residential building,"Swastik Metro Station" and Office Building with existing Mantri Greens (residential apartment of

426 flat ) & Mantri Mall (commercial complex with multiplex) on a plot area of 71,122.91 Sq.m

and the total built up area is 4,05,198.47 Sqm (Existing 2,21,118.13 Sqm + Proposed 1,84,080Sqm). The water requirement is 359 KLD and investment is Rs. 260 crores. The parking provided

is for 1648 cars.


SEAC meeting held on 27.11.2010. The proponent &

environmental consultant present explained the ToR. The proponent explained that this application

for expansion is comprehensive and includes the proposals of another application pending. The

proponent was advised to withdraw the pending application. The Committee decided to issue thefollowing additional ToRs for the preparation of the EIA report, after site inspection.

Realistic assessment on parking requirement; Compliance to the environmental clearance

issued earlier. Minimum 33% of project area should be earmarked for green belt with revisedcalculation for green area. Proposal for decongesting traffic in front of the mall by suitable remedies.

Rainwater harvesting proposal. Ambient Air Quality report at four locations near Swastic circle (500m radius) during weekend.

The Committee decided to get the spot inspected by a Committee of members namely Dr. S.

Suryaprakash, Dr. Usha. N. Murthy and Shri. M. B. Girish at the earliest on their convenience.

The subject was placed in the 61st SEAC meeting held on 18.12.2010. The subcommittee

furnished the site inspection report and the same is placed as below:

State Level Expert Appraisal Committee Members Present

1. Dr. Usha. N. Murthy - Member2. Dr. S. Suryaprakash - Member3. Shri. M. B. Girish - Member

Project Name: - Construction of Mantri Development Expansion of M/s. Mantri Infrastructure

Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore.

Inspection date: 9th

December 2010.

Location: Sy. No. 1, 2nd

Main Road, Malleshwaram, Bangalore.

The members of SEAC visited the site proposed for expansion as also the existing structures,apart from verification of the records and discussion with the proponent and the consultants.

Observations:1.The project is for expansion. The existing structures in the project site area Mantri Mall and

Mantri Greens, both of which are operational.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

11/64


11

2. The Environmental Clearance for the above two structures was issued by MoEF on 12.03.2007and 07.02.2007, respectively.

3. The proponent informed that certain additions have been made to the existing structures, whichare in excess of the area proposed for the EC.

4. There is hardly any greenery in the two existing structures.5. In the proposed site some activity is in progress. The proposed road on the western side of the

project site is being constructed. Again, earth excavation is made for the proposed structures.

6. The proposed expansion includes construction of metro station, a commercial complex and aresidential complex. A 20 metre two way road is also proposed on the western and southern side

of the project site, linking to the existing BBMP roads.

7. The entry and exit points of the existing projects area on the eastern side of the project on to theSampige road.

8. The entry and exit points for the proposed three developments are also on to the Sampige road.9. The parking space provided for the existing mall appears inadequate.Recommendations:

1. The proposed structures will invariably add to the traffic vows on the Sampige road and theadjoining roads.

2. The retaining wall on the western side of the site is indicated to be a stable structure. Thecertification of structural experts needs to be produced in this regard. The retaining wall should

be maintained well.

3. It is highly desirable to have the exit points of the proposed structures on the western side of thesite where a new road is proposed.

4. Sufficient parking space should be provided to mitigate the traffic problem that will be invariableoccur once the projects are operational .

5. A clear traffic plan should be suggested by the proponent since the existing projects on the sitearea already causing major traffic problems that have drawn the attention of the public and the

government.6. The traffic plan should be a vetted by the city traffic police and BBMP.7. Sufficient area should be earmarked for green belt development, including the deficit in the

currently operational projects on the site.

8. Since, the traffic problem is leading to air and noise pollution, the air quality studies and noisepollution studies should be done on all the roads adjacent to the site.

9. Since the proposed construction will alter the topography of the site, due care should beexercised in designing the storm water drainage of the site.

The Committee decided to issue the above as additional ToRs. The proponent is asked to

prepare the EIA and present it before the committee in the future meeting.


SEAC meeting held on 11.02.2011. The Committeeperused the above recommendations and decided to make them as a part of additional ToRs for

preparation of EIA by the project proponent. Since the subject was discussed in the earlier SEAC

meeting the Committee took a decision to await submission of EIA as required.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

12/64


12

The proponent has submitted the above information on 18.02.2011, with reference to thisoffice letter dated 31.12.2010 & 24.01.2011.


SEAC meeting held on 19.03.2011. The proponent and

environmental consultant present explained the EIA. The proponent informed that the proposedproject includes metro station, office building and residential tower. However, the project site also

encompasses the existing Mantri Greens (Residential Apartment project) and Mantri Mall

(Commercial Complex project) for which EC is obtained by MoEF, GoI and are in operation. Theproject proponent informed that the photographs of the project site shown are taken during January

2011 last week. The committee observed that the excavation is already done by M/s. BMRCL for

metro station work which is included in this project of M/s. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., as perthe joint venture. The Committee regarded the starting of excavation by BMRCL as a case of

violation of the provisions of the MoEF notification, 2006.

The Committee also observed that the greenery proposed is only 9.78 % of the total plot areaand it should be made upto 33 %. The proponent informed that they have already contacted Forest

Department regarding social forestry work but maintaining 33 % of greenery is not possible in theproject site and they would pay financially for the greenery deficit (33 % - 9.78 %) with a

commitment letter. The situation has arisen due to coming up of Metrorail station, BDA road andtheir own road in the project site.

The traffic expert informed that the LoS for projected traffic for 5 years and LOS for currenttraffic plan is > F to > F for the Sampige Road (one way). The level of service of F indicates very-

very poor performance with V/C of 1.0 and above. However, he also informed that the Metrorail

would cause considerable reduction in the traffic.

The Committee after deliberation decided to recall the proponent after obtaining the

following information from the proponent.

1. Rework on the traffic management studies taking into consideration worst-case scenario andexploring the exit from the backside of the project.

2. Social commitment plan for Rs.25 Lakhs.The proponent has submitted the above information on 29.04.2011 with reference to this

office letter dated 30.03.2011.

The subject was placed in the 71st

SEAC meeting held on 7/8.07.2011 and the subject was

deferred as the proponent has absent and also the proponent vide letter dated: 01.07.2011 has

informed his inability to attend the meeting due to personal reasons.


SEAC meeting held on 16/17.09.2011 and the subject

was deferred as the proponent vide letter dated: 14.09.2011 has informed his inability to attend the

meeting due to personal reasons.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

13/64


13

The proponent and environmental consultant present explained the above 2 queries made bythe SEAC during the SEAC meeting held on 11.11.2011.. The proponent informed that they have

proposed (i) to construct a new 20 m wide road (with separate entry and exit) at the rear of the

project site and (ii) a safe pedestrian and traffic circulation to the proposed Swastik Metro Station

and (iii) control all the access intersection to the project site. This new road proposed will ease indeviating the traffic going towards Sriramapuram road and majority of traffic from Mantri Square

Mall and the proposed project will use this new road. Further, entry to Metro Station will also drop

off. Two overhead pedestrian bridges with staircases and elevators are proposed in front of thebuilding to encourage people to cross safely to other side of the road. This proposed traffic solution

will considerably improve the LoS after completion of the project.


environmental clearance with a condition that multiple under pass to cross the main road for

pedestrians to be facilitated with traffic police permission.

The Authority perused the proposal and took note of the recommendation of the SEAC

during the meeting held on 08.12.2011.

After discussion, the Authority decided to get the following information for furtherconsideration of the proposal:

a) Specific comment and commitment on the recommendations made by the subcommittee ofSEAC.

b) Identified impact of the proposed project on the environment with special reference to Air,Water, Noise, Traffic chaos, underground drainage etc. taking in to account the existing

scenario and the mitigatory measures proposed.

The Authority also decided to invite the proponent to the meeting of the Authority.

The proponent has submitted the information on 28.12.2011. The proponent was invited tothe Authority meeting.

The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent during the meeting heldon 06.01.2012. The proponent appeared before the Authority and explained briefly about the project

with the help of a landscape plan mainly indicating road and traffic system around the proposed

project site.

The proponent clarified that the proposal involves a residential block, a commercial block

and a Metro station. The Metro station is being constructed on Public Private Partnership (PPP)

model.

The proponent further clarified that they are sparing the required land for the Metro station

and as well as 600 meters towards bypass road which will help in easing the traffic on Sampige

Road. To begin with, the proponent stated that the important causes for the present traffic chaos inthe Sampige Road is due to uncontrolled parking of vehicles, irregular pedestrian crossing and the

nearby traffic signal.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

14/64


14

The proponent explained the action proposed for easing out the traffic on Sampige Road anddetails of the study conducted for this purpose. The proponent claimed that the proposed by pass

road will bring down the traffic on Sampige Road by 40%.

While responding to the effect of proposed action plan, the proponent informed that the V/C

get reduced from 0.98 to 0.93 and LOS remains at E.

The proponent while responding to the comment that the greenery proposed is too less thatis 9.78% stated that 5 Acres of land is given for the Metro Station and 3 Acres of land is provided for

formation of a bypass road. Therefore, the required greenery could not be provided.

With regard to water supply for the proposed project, the proponent submitted that the totalwater requirement is 360 KLD which is going to be supplied by BWS&SB. The proponent further

submitted that the proposed project is going to be zero discharge as the entire quantity of treated

water will be used for non-potable purposes including HVAC.

While responding to the present status of construction, the proponent submitted that the

preliminary works of the Metro Station only have started.

After going through the details, the Authority opined that the proposed project is not goingto be environmentally sound as it would further aggravate the traffic scenario in Sampige Road apart

from other environmental aspects. The Authority opined that providing 600 meters bypass road

would not create a considerable impact on the traffic of Sampige Road as claimed by the proponent.While referring to the study with regard to V/C and LOS of the existing and changed scenario the

Authority noted that it is respectively 0.98 and E to 0.93 and E. The Authority opined that the

results are not encouraging. The Authority also opined that the construction of Metro Station may

not create much impact on the traffic scenario as the outstation buses will continue to ply throughSampige Road and the number of vehicles for dropping and picking up the passengers of Metro

would increase. The Authority further opined that the provision for entry of commercial block from

the Sampige Road also will increase the traffic density.

The Authority after discussion, opined that the proposal need to be looked into in greaterdetail with regard to the following aspects by the SEAC:

(a) Effect of the proposed project on the traffic scenario of Sampige Road taking into accountthe above observation made by the Authority and taking into account the effect on diverting

the traffic of Mantri Square project to the newly proposed road.(b) Storm water management.(c) Heat island effect due to the project(d) Internal roads and traffic circulation.(e) Effect on air quality and noise due to the project taking into the recent data into account.(f) The overall impact on the traffic in the surrounding 2 Kms from the project site considering

by shifting the entry and exit to the existing mall be assessed taking into account the

traffic scenario from 18th

Cross, Malleshwaram, entry point from Rajajinagar at Devaiah

Park, entry and exit from Rajajinagar near the underbridge church, Majestic,Sheshadripuram Main Road and the new bypass road proposed in the property of the

proponent.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

15/64


15

(g) The environmental appraisal shall include the following:(i) Traffic Scenario Assessment based on last 10 years information that is from 2000

onwards.(ii) Parking facilities in the surroundings.(iii) Numbers of Residential apartments in the surroundings and expected expansion ofexisting units taking present trend of development into account.(iv) Status of availability of water and present level of supply in the vicinity areas of 2

Kms.

(v) Probable impact on the present level of water supply to the competitive users in thesurrounding area.

(vi) Size and type of sewer system at the vicinity of the project site and its carryingcapacity to accommodate the load due to the proposed project.

(vii) Probable impact of pumping the sewage from the proposed basement when the projectbecomes operational and especially during the rainy season in case of accidental

failure of treatment system/flooding.

(h)

Commitment from the BWS&SB with regard to supply of water and capacity to handle thesewage from the proposed project without affecting the residents in the surrounding areas.(i) Plan to protect the interest of present residents of the surrounding area from any untoward

impact which may arise due to the proposed project during its construction and operation

phase.(j) Views of the concerned Government institutions such as KSPCB, State Traffic Police, etc.

regarding the issues of their concern on the likely impact due to the proposed project and

to address public outcry that may arise in future.(k) Road width in front of both the complexes must be as per fire safety norms.(l) Parking space inside the residential and commercial complexes are to be worked as per

MOEF norms

(m)

Location of STP must be above ground level.(n) Management of disposal of large quantity of excavated earth(o) Safety management of metro station during deep excavation.(p) Identification of Solid waste management location in both the complexes .

The Authority therefore decided to refer the proposal back to SEAC to reassess andreconsider the proposal taking into above aspects and to resubmit recommendation as deemed fit.


SEAC meeting held on 9/10.02.2012 and the observations

made by the SEIAA as above were circulated to the members during the meeting for reference. It

was seen by the Committee that some of the items observed by SEIAA have already been appraised

by SEAC and brought out in recommendations. Some of the information needs to be obtained fromproject proponent. In view of this, the Committee decided to obtain relevant information from the

project proponent and also to put up a Note on the previous documentation pertaining to the project

before SEAC for reappraisal.

The proponent has submitted the information on 11.05.2012 with response to this office letter

dated: 27.02.2012.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

16/64


16

The proponent and environmental consultant present explained the project in the SEACmeeting held on 20

th& 21

stJuly 2012. The discussion was limited the queries raised in the letter

dated 27.02.2012 to the project proponent. The Committee observed that the NOC for water supply

from BWS&SB is obtained in the name of M/s. National Textile Corporation on 09.02.2004.

However, it is noted that the project was purchased from M/s. National Textile Corporation. Theother queries were also perused. It is seen that some of the queries are beyond the purview of the

proponent.


environmental clearance with a condition that the project proponent shall obtain latest NOC fromBWS&SB in the name of M/s. Mantri Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., for the present proposal.

The Authority perused proposal and took note of the recommendation of the SEAC during

the meeting held on 6th

August 2012.

The Authority observed that the environmental concerns expressed during the meeting held

on 06.01.2012, have not been adequately addressed. The Authority further opined that the proposedproject site is located in a busy commercial area, wherein severe traffic congestion has attracted

criticism from every corner of the society.

The Authority therefore decided to get the following information along with the issues raised

in SEAC letter dated 27.02.2012 addressed to the proponent for further consideration of theproposal:

(a)Reasons for the existing traffic congestion and measures proposed for easing out thescenario.

(b)Identified environmental stress due to the proposed activity on the surroundings such aswater supply, solid waste management, storm water management, increased traffic load,

safety aspects, etc. and measures proposed for mitigating the identified stress.(c)Adequacy of existing infrastructure with regard to water supply and handling sewerage.(d)Details of corporate Environment policy as envisaged vide O.M. No.J-11013/41/2006-

IA.II(I)-Part dated 19th

May 2011 of Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government ofIndia, New Delhi and listed below are not forthcoming:

1)Does the company have a well laid down Environment Policy approved by its BoardDirectors? If so, it may be detailed in the EIA report.

2)Does the Environment Polity prescribe for standard operating process/procedures tobring into focus any infringement / deviation / violation of the environmental or forest

norms / conditions? If so, it is to detailed in the EIA.3)What is the hierarchical system or Administrative order of the company to deal with the

environmental issues and for ensuring compliance with the EC conditions. Details ofthis system to be given.

4)Does the company have a system of reporting of non compliances / violations ofenvironmental norms to the Board of Directors of the company and / or shareholders or

stakeholders at large? This reporting mechanism should be detailed in the EIA report.

(e)Disclosure of details of Environment consultant, its proprietorship with accreditationdetails with QCI and subject expert who prepared the EIA report etc.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

17/64


17




The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent. The proponent appearedbefore the Authority and briefly explained about the proposed project.

The Authority sought to know the information with regard to the issues flagged during the

meeting held on 6th

August 2012. The proponent submitted the following information:

(a)Reasons for the existing traffic congestion and measures proposed for easing out the scenario:The proponent informed that while undertaking the earlier projects viz., Mantri Greens and

Mantri Mall, area required for formation of bypass road of 600 meters was relinquished to the

BBMP in order to ease the traffic congestion in Sampige Road. However due to someadministrative problems the BBMP could not take up the formation of the said bypass road.

Added to this, Sampige Road is being extensively used as commercial road wherein street parking

is very common resulting in obstructing the movement of vehicles. Number of buses originatingfrom the Bangalore Bus Stand going towards Nelamangala and other places also contributes to

the traffic congestion.

The proponent informed that in order to ease out the traffic on the Sampige Road, the

company proposes the following measures:

i) Formation of the proposed bypass road.ii) Persuading Ministry of Railways to widen railway underpass near Mill corner Road and

the proposed bypass junction.

iii) Shifting current entrance and exist gates of Mantri Mall to the proposed access road.iv) Deploying staff to prevent street parking.v)

Providing over bridge / escalators for safe pedestrian crossing which will also help inpreventing obstruction to the moving traffic.

The proponent claimed that there would be reduction of 40% traffic load on the Sampige

Road if the proposed bypass road becomes operational. The Authority however expressed a view thatthe inference is not supported by statistics and reliable data. Travel time analysis and the PCU details

do not appeared to be realistic. The Authority therefore opined that reduction of 40% traffic load on

Sampige Road due to bypass road of 600 meters will be difficultpossibility.

(b)Identified environmental stresses due to the proposed activity and measures proposed formitigating:

The proponent submitted that the proposed location is already a developed area. While

undertaking the Environment Impact Assessment the cumulative impact has been taken intoaccount and mitigative and safety measures are built in.

(c)Adequacy of existing infrastructure with regard to water supply and handling sewerage:The proponent informed that since it is only an expansion of existing facilities, the existing

infrastructure will cater to the incremental load. While responding to the remarks made by SEAC

that the NOC issued by the BWS&SB is in the name of M/s. National Textile Corporation, the

proponent submitted that it will be got transferred to their name.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

18/64


18

(d)Details of corporate Environment policy:The proponent submitted that the company has a well laid corporate environment policy and

the details have been furnished.

(e)Disclosure of details of Environment consultant:The proponent submitted that M/s Environmental Health & Safety Consultants Private

Limited are the environment consultants. The consultants are QCI/NABET accredited and the

details of consultants have been provided.

While replying to query with regard to stocking of construction material during the

construction phase, the proponent submitted that a separate location for stocking of the construction

material have been earmarked outside the project premises and the material will be shifted during

night time.

The Authority expressed an apprehension that the entire area will become impervious due to

the proposed development and result in flooding of the existing storm water drains which are notdesigned to take this kind of load. While responding to this apprehension, the proponent submitted

that they have proposed to have a below ground level reservoir for storage of storm water which

will be used by golf course.

While reacting on the water balance, proponent informed that due to use of around 92 KLD

of treated water for HVAC, the project will be zero discharge unit with regard to STP treated water.

The proponent further submitted that the treated water from the Malleshwaram STP of the

BWS&SB will be used for construction activity.

While responding to the query, whether any effort made to get the consensus of local peoplewith regard to the proposed activity, the proponent submitted that the local residents including Mrs.

Meenakshi who had raised grouse on the traffic congestion in Sampige Road have been consultedand their suggestions also have been incorporated in the proposal.

The Authority observed that green belt proposed in the project is too low. The proponentsubmitted that lot of space has been relinquished for the public utility from the project site. The

relinquished land is used for formation of a bypass road to ease out the traffic in Sampige Road.

The proposed Metro Station is also built in their own land. Therefore, sufficient provision forgreenbelt could not be made. However the proponent submitted that they are committed to

compensate by way of undertaking greenbelt developing through social forestry. An amount of

Rs. 20 lakhs is earmarked for this purpose. The Authority opined that compensatory greenbelt

development would certainly help environment, but improved greenbelt in the project site helps in

improving the local environment, wherein noise pollution and air pollution would be an issue.

The Authority after discussion, decided to get the following additional information from the

proponent for further consideration of the proposal:

(a) Compliance on the EC issued by the MOEF, New Delhi for the earlier two projects.(b) Proper storm water management plan.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

19/64


19

(c) Proposal for mitigating the noise and dust pollution including the proposed barriers.(d) Parking details taking into account the MoEF guidelines/BBMP norms/BHK norms.(e) Details of alternatives including shifting of entry and exist to the project site to make the

project environmentally sustainable.

The Authority also decided to visit the project site for verification of ground realities.

5. Krishna Cultural Center-Amendment Project at Sy. No. 55, Vasanthapura village,Uttarahalli Hobli, Bangalore South Taluk, Bangalore by India Heritage Trust & Iskcon

Charities (SEIAA 70 CON 2012)

It is a proposal for construction of Cultural Centre with Meeting Hall, Office Room on anarea of 1,20,676.60 Sq.m and with the total built up area of 1,83,380 Sq.m. The total water

requirement is 930 KLD and the investment is of Rs. 350 crores. The total parking provided is for

2045 cars.M/s. Iskcon Charities and India Heritage Charities applied for Environmental Clearance

(EC) from SEIAA for their new proposed Krishna Cultural Center Project at Sy.No. 55,

Vasanthpura, Hobli-Uttarahalli, Bangalfore South Taluk, Bangalore under 8(b) of Schedule of EIANotification, 2006 under category-B. Total project cost is Rs. 350 Crores. Project site is as per

Bangalore RMP-2015. Project comes under BBMP.

The subject was taken up in 76th

SEAC meeting dated 11.11.2011 wherein the PP was

advised to submit his modified proposal in Form 1 & 1A with observation that MoEF( EC letter

dated 3.4.2006) & SEIAA( SEIAA 194 CON 2008 dated 20.05.2011) have issued environmentalclearances to different proposals of the entire project.

The PP has already obtained EC for Krishna Cultural Center which was covered in EC dated

20.05.2011 of SEIAA 194 CON 2008 but requested for a separate EC for Krishna Cultural Center

and has submitted this present proposal in revised Form 1 and 1A. For balance portion along withmodifications, he has submitted a separate proposal vide file no. SEIAA 148 CON 2011 which is

before SEAC. The project details of the present proposal for Krishna Cultural Center are as under:

Project Details: Connectivity: the project is connected through BWSSB road. Land: Total

plot area: 1,20,676.60 Sqm; Total built up area: 1,83,380 Sqm. Landscape area: 78741.49 Sqm

(65.2%of plot area). Water Requirement: Total water requirement is 1200 KLD; Fresh waterrequirement: 593 KLD, sourced from borewell/private water tankers/ in future BWSSB. Sewage:

Total quantity generated: 530 KLD, treated in proposed STP of design capacity 530KLD; Sludge

generated: 44.52 kg/day used as manure. Municipal Solid Waste: Total generated: 3500 kg/day;Organic waste: 2100 kg/day treated in EXCEL type accelerated organic waste convertor and productused as manure. Inorganic waste: 1400 kg/day will be sent for recycling. Power: Total Requirement:

20,476 KVA from BESCOM; Backup Power: DG sets of 8x2000 KVA .Parking: 2045 ECS with

MLCP.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

20/64


20

Project surrounding details: BIAL- 50km. HAL Airport-22km.NH-209 -800m; TurahalliForest-1.78km;yediyur lake7.0km;Hosakerhalli lake- 7km; Uttara halli lake- 1.92km;BNP-12km;

Uttara halli-1.5km; Turahalli Forest- 1.78km; Other details: Rain Water harvesting is proposed.

The PP vide letter received on 22.05.2012 has stated that RoW in front of the project site is18.30 CDP road, Height of the Building is 120m (Main Building having 32 floors), the nearest fire

station is 6km away from the project site, and they have applied before Revenue Dept for NOC from

Disaster Management Cell.

The proponent and environmental consultant present explained the project during the SEAC

meeting held on 25.05.2012. The proponent informed that environmental clearance has already beenissued vide SEIAA 194 CON 2008 dated 20.05.2011 which includes Krishna Cultural Centre,

recreational, shopping, community centre, executive (resi) tower & business centre at Sy. No. 55 of

Vasanthapura Village, Sy. No. 55/1, 55/2(P), 56, 57, 58 & 60 (P) of Doddakallasanda Village. He

has also obtained MoEF clearance for residential apartments in Sy. No. 39/1, 39/2, 47/1, 47/2 ofVasanthapura Village and Sy. No. 56, 57, 58, 59 & 60 of Doddakallasanda Village. The proponent

requested for delinking of the Krishna Cultural Centre proposed in Sy. No. 55 of VasanthapuraVillage from the environmental clearance certificate issued already by SEIAA and issue amendedenvironmental clearance exclusively for Krishna Cultural Centre since there is no

change/modification in the Krishna Cultural Centre proposed.

The Committee after deliberation decided to obtain an undertaking from the project

proponent that there is no change/modification in the Krishna Cultural Centre proposed and it is only

bifurcation of the earlier environmental clearance issued by SEIAA and recommend the proposal toSEIAA for issue of amended environmental clearance.

The proponent has furnished the information vide letter dated 10.07.2012.

The Authority perused the reply submitted by the proponent and took note of therecommendation of the SEAC during the meeting held on 6th

August 2012.

The Authority noted that the project authorities have initially taken Environmental Clearance

from the Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India vide letter dated 03.04.2006.Subsequently, the E.C. has been modified vide letter of the Authority No. SEIAA 194 CON 2008

dated 20.05.2011. It is further noted that in another proposal is being considered by SEAC in File

No. SEIAA 148 CON 2011 apart from the project that is being dealt in this proposal. The Authority

opined that details of projects in all these proposals are not forthcoming from the file. TheEnvironmental Impact Assessment need to take into account the cumulative impact of all the

components in the premises. The Authority further noted that these proposals also involve

bifurcation of the area and overlapping with each other.

The Authority after discussion, decided to get the following information for furtherconsideration of the proposal:

(a)Details of Environmental Clearances issued for the projects in the proposed site.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

21/64


21

(b)Compliances on the conditions imposed in each of the Environmental Clearances issuedboth by Government of India and the Authority.

(c)Present status of construction of all the projects that have been issued EnvironmentalClearances and the present stage of construction of the proposed activity.

(d)Clarification as to whether proposed activity is new, or modified with relevantdocuments.

(e)Layout plan of the project site duly marking the area earmarked for the activities thathave already been given Environmental Clearance and the proposed activity with proper

marking to distinguish the bifurcation area / overlapping if any.

(f)NoC from the BWS&SB for supply of water to each of the projects.The Authority also decided to invite the proponent with relevant details.





The proponent clarified that initially Environmental Clearance was obtained from theMinistry of Environment and Forests, Government of India vide letter No. 21-40/2006-IA (CIE)

dated 3rd

April 2006 for construction of residential apartments on a plot area of 9.174 Ha. with a

total built up area of 2,90,515.17 Sqm comprising of 1520 flats. The project was further modified

with addition of Krishna Cultural Centre, Recreational, shopping, community Centre, etc. andrevised EC was obtained vide No. SEIAA 194 CON 2008 dated 20

thMay 2011.

The proponent has now bifurcated the property into the following two projects due to

administrative reasons:

i) Krishna Cultural Centre with built up area of 1,83,380 Sqm on a plot area of 1,20,676.60Sqm in Sy. No. 55 of Vasanthapura Village.

ii) Expansion and modification of residential cum mall with built up area of 8,54,669.917 Sqmon a plot area of 1,72,447.25 Sqm in Sy. No. 39/1, 39/2, 47/1 1n3 47/2 of VasanthapuraVillage, Sy. No. 55/1, 55/2, 56, 57, 58, 59 and 60 (P) of Doddakallsandra Village, which is

under appraisal by the SEAC.

The proponent clarified that this proposal pertains to only Krishna Cultural Centre.

The Authority after discussion, decided to issue of revised Environmental Clearance subject

to submission of NOC from the BWSSB.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

22/64


22

Industry Projects:

1. Establishment of Coke Oven Project (2 X 1,20,000 MTPA) and coke oven off gasesbased Captive Power Plant (2 X 9 MW), Ginigera Village, Koppal Taluk and District

of M/s. Kalyani Steels Limited (SEIAA 14 IND 2009)

It is a project proposal for Establishment of coke oven plant of capacity 2,40,000 TPA and

Waste heat power plant of 2 X 9 MW. The total plot area is 52 acres 11 guntas. The total water

requirement is 3473 Cum per day. The investment is of Rs. 148.71 Crores


SEAC meeting held on 20.06.2009 and the proponent has

presented and explained about the project. The Committee has decided to categories this project asB1 and to issue the following ToRs in addition to the standard ToRs:

1. Impact of transportation of Coal.2. Details of green belt area with type and no. of tree species proposed.3. Comprehensive health report of people in the surrounding villages.4. Source and transportation of water.

ToRs issued on 17.06.2009 for the preparation of EIA report. The proponent has submitted

the EIA report along with the public consultation on 2.12.2010 & 12.05.2011.


SEAC meeting held on 17th

& 18th

June 2011 and the

subject was deferred as the members informed that the appraisal material from the project proponenthas not been received. The same was informed to the project proponent present.

The proponent and environmental consultant present explained EIA during the SEAC

meeting held on 07.07.2011. The proponent informed the following points before the Committee.

52 acres additional land is required for the project and it is allotted by the KIADB. The proposed site is adjacent to the existing plant. T.B. reservoir is 6.0 Kms upstream of the project site. Nearest habitation is Ginigera which is around 1 Km away. Coal is imported from Australia having 25% ash content. Coal is stored in an open space with concrete flooring. Coal is transported through rail route.

The Committee advised the proponent to install continuous ambient air quality monitoring

station and adopt the green technology for the project. The Committee advised the proponent to

provide ambulance facility to the villagers and also to plant trees in the landscape area to mitigate

pollution.

After deliberation, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for issue ofenvironmental clearance after obtaining the details of number of tree species proposed to be planted

from the proponent.

The proponent had submitted the information vide letter dated 31.07.2011.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

23/64


23

The Authority perused the information submitted by the proponent and took note of therecommendation of the SEAC during the meeting held on 26.08.2011.

The Authority desired to know the cumulative impact of the existing industry and the

proposed industry on the environment and the action taken for safe disposal of fly ash. After

discussion, the Authority decided to get the following information:(a)Details of industries within the radius of 10 Kms from the project site and the cumulative

impact including the proposed activity on the environment in terms of air pollution,

water pollution, impact on road infrastructure and socio economic aspects.(b)Compliance on the suggestions of the public hearing held for the existing industry and

the proposed activity.

(c)Compliance on the EC/CFO of the existing industry.(d)Proposal for safe disposal of fly ash in accordance with Fly Ash Notification, S.O. 763

(E) dated 14.09.1999 and amendments thereon.

The Authority also decided to invite the proponent to the Authority meeting to provide

further clarification, if any.The proponent has submitted the information vide letter dated 27.06.2012. The proponent

has been invited to the meeting.

The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent during the meeting heldon 6

thAugust 2012. The proponent remained absent. The Authority noted that information sought

vide Authority letter dated 05.09.2011 has been submitted on 26.06.2012, after lapse of almost 10

months. The information furnished does not reveal the detailed compliance on the EC / CFO issuedfor the existing unit. It is observed from the information that the development of greenbelt is very

poor.

The Authority after discussion, decided to provide one more opportunity to the proponent to

appear before the Authority and furnish information / clarification on the project. The Authoritydecided to defer the subject to the next meeting and to invite the proponent.

The proponent was invited to the meeting.

The proponent vide letter dated 30.08.2012 have informed that the senior management teamof the company is travelling abroad on company business and therefore unable to attend the

scheduled meeting.

The Authority noted that the proponent have not shown interest either in submitting theinformation sought or in attending the Authority meeting to furnish the required information. It was

further noted that the information sought vide letter dated 05.09.2011 was submitted vide letter

dated 26th

June 2012 after a lapse of almost 10 months. Subsequently, the proponent has failed toattend the Authority meeting held on 6

thAugust 2012 also.

The Authority after discussion decided to provide a last opportunity and invite him for thenext meeting of the Authority. The Authority also decided to get a report from the Karnataka State

Pollution Control Board with regard to whether the activity has been undertaken without the

required Environmental Clearance or otherwise.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

24/64


24

Mining Projects:

1. Pink Granite Quarry, Sy. No.125/2, Hulageri village, Kustagi, Taluk, Koppal Districtby Sri A. Gopinath (SEIAA 19 MIN 2012)

It is a project proposal for Pink Granite Quarrying with the production of 2000 cubicmtrs/annum. Total land area 1.68 Ha in Private Patta land. The investment of Rs. 100 lakhs.

Sri. A.Gopinath have applied for EC from SEIAA for their proposed New Quarry withproduction of Pink Granite at 2000 cum /year at Quarry Lease No. Applied at Sy. No. 125/2 of

Hulageri Village, Kustagi Taluk, Koppal District over an area of 1.68 Ha (4.06 Acres) of private

Land under Schedule 1 (a) of EIA Notification, 2006 read with O.M. dated 18.05.2012 of MoEFunder Category- B. The total project cost is Rs. 100 Lakhs. Proposed Method of Quarrying: Semi-

mechanized Open Cast with Jack Hammer Drilling with wire saw cutting. Estimated reserves:

51,750 cum. Saleable Pink Granite: 10,000cum. Ore to OB Ratio: 1:1.50; The proponent has

submitted the Land documents (RTC) and Notification dated 03.01.2012 issued by Commerce and

Industry Department for a period of 10 years, Government of Karnataka for quarrying and alsoenvironmental management plan from accreditated consultant.

Project Details: (a) Land: The Quarry Lease area is private Land in owners name. Land Use

pattern: Area of Excavation: 1.08 ha; Waste Dumps- 0.06 ha; Mineral Storage: 0.06 ha;

Infrastructure: 0.001 ha; Roads 0.13 Ha; Green Belt: 0.315 Ha; Others: 0.001 ha; UnexploredArea: 0.033 Ha. (b) Water: Total Requirement: 5.0 KLD is sourced from borewell for domestic,

sprinkling for dust suppression and afforestation. (c) Over Burden: total Quantity: 15,000 TPA;

Project Surrounding Details: Hulageri Main Road2.0km.

The subject was discussed in the SEAC meeting held on 7.07.2012. The proponent and

environmental consultant present explained the project. The proponent informed that the lease area

is situated in private land and no sensitive area like water bodies, wildlife sanctuaries, nationalparks, monuments and interstate boundaries exist within 10 km from the study area. The proponent

informed that quarry lease renewal application is submitted to DMG and NOC from RevenueDepartment for grand of quarry lease dated 24.04.2009 is obtained. The proponent submitted the

approved Quarrying Plan dated 03.07.2012 from DMG.

The proponent requested for B2 category for the following justification:

1. The proposed quarrying is a small scale open cast quarrying without deep holedrilling and blasting with very less over burden. The granite production is only 2000

cum/year.

2. Mitigation measures such as dust proof drilling units and wire saw cutting to avoidblasting are proposed.

3. There is no crushing or screening and total handling of granite block andwaste/defective blocks is very minimal.

The Committee discussed the above points in detail and decided to categorize the projectunder B2 category in view of the minimal environmental impact. The Committee advised the

proponent not to use available water for potable purpose as it contains high concentration of nitrate.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

25/64


25

After deliberation, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for issue ofenvironmental clearance after obtaining Social Commitment plan for Rs. 2 Lakhs on letter head as

committed.

The Authority perused the proposal and took note of the recommendation of the SEAC

during the meeting held on 6th August 2012.

The Authority after discussion, decided to get the following information for further

consideration.

(a)Total availability of confirmed mineral resource and methodology adapted for estimationof resource

(b)Plan for safe disposal of waste.(c)Justification for quarrying in 1.68 Ha area of patta land.(d)Number of workers to be engaged and measures proposed for their health and safety.(e)Type of machinery proposed to be deployed.The proponent has furnished information vide letter dated 24.08.2012.

The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent.

The Authority noted that the proposed project site has an estimated reserve of about 51750

Cum.

The Authority after discussion and taking into view the proved and probable deposits, decided

to issue Environmental Clearance for production of 1800 Cum of pink Granite per Annum.

2. "Grey Granite Quarry" (QL No. 414), Sy.No.401/1, Mudgal village, LingasugurTaluk, Raichur District by Sri Rekhappa L. Rathod (SEIAA 8 MIN 2012)

It is a project proposal for Grey Granite Quarrying with the production of 2000 cubic mtrs /

annum. Total land area 0.81Ha in Private Patta land. The investment of Rs. 100 lakhs.

Sri. Rekhappa L. Rathod has applied for EC from SEIAA for their proposed Expansion of

Quarrying with production of Grey Granite at 2000 cum/year at quarry lease No. 414 at Sy. No.

401/1 of Mudgal Village, Lingasugur Taluk, Raichur District over an area of 2.00Acres of PattaLand under Schedule 1 (a) of EIA Notification, 2006 read with O.M. dated 18.05.2012 of MoEF

under Category- B. Man Power: 20; Proposed Method of Quarrying/: Open Cast Semi- Mechanized

with optima wire saw for cutting of granite block (replacing the conventional method to avoid

blasting). The drilling is by small dia. jack hammer dust proof drills. Mineable reserves: 55,000cum.The total project cost: Rs. 100 Lakhs. The proponent has submitted Quarry License No. 414/2000

granted with effect from 23.01.2001 for a period of 10 years by DMG and environmental

management plan prepared by the accredited consultant.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

26/64


26

Project Details: (a) Land: The Quarry Lease area is Patta Land. Land Use pattern: Quarry0.25 Ha; Waste Dumps- 0.063 Acres; Roads 0.25 Acres; infrastructure 0.021 Acres; mineral

stockyard0.123 Acres; Green Belt 0.02 Acres; (b) Water: Total Requirement: 5 KLD is sourced

from bore well for domestic, sprinkling for dust suppression and afforestation. (c) Over Burden:

total Quantity: 10,000 cum in 5 years plan period. Project Surrounding Details: Jakkar-Madu

Village: 1.10 km;

The subject was discussed in the SEAC meeting held on 07.07.2012.The proponent and

environmental consultant present explained the project. The proponent informed that the lease area

is situated in private land and no sensitive area like water bodies, wildlife sanctuaries, nationalparks, monuments and interstate boundaries exist within 10 km from the study area. The proponent

informed that quarry lease renewal application is submitted to DMG on 28.09.2010 and NA from

Revenue Department for grand of renewal of lease dated 13.01.2009. The proponent submitted the

approved quarrying plan dated 07.07.2012 from DMG.

The proponent requested for B2 category for the following justification:

1. The proposed quarrying is a small scale open cast quarrying without deep hole drillingand blasting with very less over burden. The granite production is only 2000 cum/year.

2. Mitigation measures such as dust proof drilling units and wire saw cutting to avoidblasting are proposed.

3. There is no crushing or screening and total handling of granite block andwaste/defective blocks is very minimal.

The Committee discussed the above points in detail and decided to categorize the project

under B2 category in view of the minimal environmental impact. After deliberation, the Committee

decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for issue of environmental clearance.

The Authority perused the proposal and took note of the recommendation of the SEACduring the meeting held on 6

thAugust 2012.

The Authority after discussion, decided to get the following information for further

consideration.

(a)Details of yearwise production and removal of granite in the past.(b)Details of remaining resource and methodology adapted for estimation with details of

estimation.

(c)Feasibility of quarrying in 0.8 Ha of land.(d)Type of machinery to be used / deployed for production of granite block.(e)Plan for safe disposal of waste.(f) Profile of labourers engaged, their medical health check up reports(g)Measures adapted for health and safety of workers.The proponent has furnished information vide letter dated 24.08.2012.

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

27/64


27

The Authority perused the information furnished by the proponent.

The Authority noted that as per the IBM guidelines a minimum of 7.5 meters safety area has

to be left from the boundary of the lease area. Mining/ quarrying has to be undertaken with benches

of 3 meters with 45 degree slope. Following this criteria mining / quarrying can be undertaken onlyfor 3 to 4 benches. A minimum of 30 meters at bottom of the mine pit has to be maintained.

Therefore, mining / quarrying in smaller extent does not appear to be technically feasible. Added to

this, the area is also to be reserved for storing mineral blocks, storage of waste material and area isalso needed for development of greenbelt. Thereby taking all these parameters, no environmentally

sustainable quarrying can be achieved in less than one hectare of area.

The Authority after discussion, decided to direct the proponent to increase the lease area and

to furnish the revised land use plan for taking environmentally sustainable quarrying.

Fresh Projects:

Construction Projects:

1. Radiant Lake View, Residential Apartment, Khata No. 851, 851/1 & 851/2 Sy No.16/1,16/2 & 27/1, Medahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli,Bengaluru East Taluk, Bengaluru

by M/s. Radiant Builders (SEIAA 108 CON 2012)

It is a proposal for expansion of Residential Apartment from 140 units to 420 Units in 3blocks with Stilt + Ground floor + 3 Upper floors on an area of 19,916.34 Sq.m and the total built

up area is 43,078 Sq.m. The total water requirement is 287 KLD and the investment is of Rs.50

crores. The total parking provided is for 462 cars.

M/s. Radiant Builders., have applied for Environmental Clearance (EC) from SEIAA fortheir expansion of residential apartments Radiant Lake View project at Katha No. 851, 851/1,851/2 & Sy. No. 16/1, 16/2 & 27/1 of Medahalli Village, Bidarahalli Hobli, Bangalore East Taluk,

Bangalore under 8(a) of Schedule of EIA Notification, 2006 under category-B. Total project cost is

Rs. 50 Crores. Project comes under BBMP limits; Land conversion obtained from DC. The projectsite is a designated residential (Main) Zone as per RMP-2015 of BDA & the Land has been

converted from Agricultural to residential purpose.

Project Details: Land: Total Site area: 19,916.34 Sqm; Total built up area: 43,078.0 Sqm.

(Existing 12,952.44 (with 140 units) + proposed 30,125.57 Sqm Project consists of 280 with units

(Total 420 units) Stilt + G + 3 Upper Floors: (b) Greenery: Landscape area: 6771.55 Sqm (34% ofplot area). Water Requirement: Total water requirement is 222 KLD; Fresh water requirement 191

KLD: sourced from BWSSB. Excavated Earth: Total Quantity of excavated earth: 69707.19 Cum;

backfilling quantity 18857.19 Cum; landscaping quantity: 16928.87 Cum: Road leveling quantity

20067.68 Cum: Formation quantity 13853.45 Cum; Sewage: Total quantity generated: 97.2 KLD,treated in proposed STP of design capacity 100 KLD; Sludge generated: 11.5 kg/day used as

manure. Municipal Solid Waste: Total generated: 1050 kg/day; Organic waste: 630 kg/day treated

in organic convertor and product used as manure. Inorganic waste: 420 kg/day will be sent for

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

28/64


28

recycling. Power: Total Requirement: 2493.75 KVA from BESCOM; Backup Power: DG sets of 3X 350 KVA; Parking: 462 Numbers.

Project surrounding details: BIAL- 44 km; Devasandra Lake -4.7 km kithnur Lake-1.4 km.

Other details: Rain Water Harvesting is proposed. Geotechnical report submitted

The subject was discussed in the SEAC meeting held on 21st

July 2012. The proponent

and environmental consultant present explained the project. The proponent informed that the heightof the building is 14.95 m and hence the O.M. on high rise building does not apply. The project is

accessed by Medahalli Road to reach OMR (Bangalore Hoskote) which is 1 km away. The

existing projected & modified LoS of OMR is C-D-E (Road towards Hoskote), B-B-B (Roadtowards Bangalore City) and the same for Medahalli Road is A-B-B. The level difference in the

project site is 3m. The proponent informed that the buildings prior to expansion are under

construction.

After deliberation, the Committee decided to recommend the proposal to SEIAA for issue

of environmental clearance after obtaining social commitment plan on letterhead forRs. 5 Lakhs, as committed by the proponent during the meeting.

The proponent has furnished information vide letter dated 10.08.2012.

The Authority perused the information submitted by the proponent and took note of the

recommendation of the SEAC.

The Authority after discussion, decided to clear the proposal for issue of Environmental

Clearance after submission of the following information:

(a)Authentic plan approved by the competent authority for undertaking construction of12,952 Sqm.

(b)NOC from the BWS&SB.(c)Status of UGD and plan for disposal of excess treated water in the absence of UGD.(d)Revised water balance for monsoon and non-monsoon season.

2. Residential Apartment at Sy.No. 71, Nellurahalli vilalge, Bangalore East Taluk,Bangalore by M/s Red Coral Properties (SEIAA 206 CON 2011)

It is a proposal for construction of Residential Apartment of 196 units and a club house in 5

Blocks with Basement + Stilt Floor + 8 Upper Floors. The total water requirement is 132.3 KLD

and the investment is of Rs.30 crores. The total parking provided is for 336 cars.

M/s. Red Coral Properties have applied for EC from SEIAA for their new proposedResidential Apartment project at Sy. No. 71, Nellurahalli Village, Bangalore East Taluk, Bangalore

under Schedule No 8(a) of EIA Notification, 2006. Total project cost: Rs. 30 Crores. The building

proposed is within BBMP area. The proposed project site is flat terrain with red sandy loam soil .

7/27/2019 55th SEIAA Meeting- 03.09.2012

29/64


29

Project Details: (a) Land: Total plot area: 10533 Sqm; Total built up area: 32657.79 Sqm;the project consists of 196 units with Basement Floor + Stilt Floor + Club House + 8 Upper Floors

and Terrace Floor. (b) Greenery: Landscape area: 3724.4 Sqm (35.36%). (c) Water Requirement:

Total water requirement is 128 KLD sourced from BWSSB. (d) Soil: Total excavated soil: 20000

Cum; the above about to 20000 cum will be used within the project site for landscaping of gardensand road making etc. (e) Sewage: Total quantity generated:102 KLD treated in proposed STP

design capacity of 100 KLD; sludge- 5 Kg/day used as manure. (f) Solid waste: Total generated:

285 Kg/day; organic waste of 171 Kg/day treated in organic Convertor and product used asmanure. Inorganic waste of 114 Kg/day will be sent for recycling. (g) Power Requirement: Total

Requirement: 500 KVA from BESCOM; Power Backup 2 X 250KVA DG sets (h) Parking: 336

Numbers provided at Basement & Stilt Floor.

Project surrounding Details: Kadogodi Railway Station-5Kms; Bangalore International

Airport-25Kms.Other details: Rain Water Harvesting proposed.


January 2012. The proponent

present explained the project. The proponent informed that the project site is 1.5 km away fromNellurahalli village. The level difference of the project site is 3.58 m. the committee advised the

proponent to include Neem and fruit bearing trees in the landscape plan. The project is alongNellurahalli road

55th seiaa meeting- 03.09.2012

Documents