HomeMy WebLinkAboutCDP 98-37; Nissan New Car Dealership; Coastal Development Permit (CDP)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO: SDP 98-08/CDP 98-37
DATE: AUGUSTS. 1998
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: NISSAN NEW CAR DEALERSHIP
APPLICANT: SAITAMA NISSAN (USA) CORPORATION
ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 4670 CONVOY STREET. SAN
DIEGO. CA. 92111 (619)431-3100
DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: MAY 6. 1998
2.
3.
4.
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Development of an auto dealership on the west side of Car Country'
Drive, north of Palomar Airport Road and south of Cannon Road, within the Car Country
Specific Plan area. The improvements will consist of a 3664 square foot display and
administrative building and a 3550 square foot service building that will have 12 service bays.
The site is a previously graded pad that slopes gently to the west.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project,
involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact
Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning
Population and Housing
Geological Problems
Water
Air Quality
[X] Transportation/Circulation [ | Public Services
| | Biological Resources [ | Utilities & Service Systems
[~~| Energy & Mineral Resources [ [ Aesthetics
f"~| Hazards | | Cultural Resources
[~~| Noise | [ Recreation
[~| Mandatory Findings of Significance
Rev. 03/28/96
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency)
E><] I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the
environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
[~| I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation
measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
| | I find that the proposed project MAY have significant effect(s) on the environment, but at
least one potentially significant effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation
measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An Mitigated
Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be
addressed.
[ | I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially
significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier Master Environmental
Impact Review (MEIR 93-01) pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been voided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier Master Environmental Review (MEIR 93-01),
including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
s-r-re
Date
Planning Director s Signature Date
Rev. 03/28/96
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3. Article 5. Section 15063 requires that the City
conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant
effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following
pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human
factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to
use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Negative
Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
• 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
• If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an
EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and
those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this
case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated"
may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared.
• 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.
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
or zoning?Conflict with general plan designation
(Source #(s):(#l:Pgs 5.6-1-5.6-18)
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 -5.6-18)
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (#l:Pgs 5.6-1 - 5.6-18)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
Potentialh
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (#l: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)? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -
5.5-6)
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (#l:Pgs 5.5-1 -5.5-6)
D
D
D
D
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
b) Seismic ground shaking? ((#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
((#l:Pgs 5.1-1-5.1.15)
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
e) Landslides or mudflows? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
0 Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (#l:Pgs
5.1-1 -5.1-15)
g) Subsidence of the land? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -5.1-15)
h) Expansive soils? (# 1 :Pgs 5.1-1-5.1-15)
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (#l:Pgs 5.1-1 -
5.1-15)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D IEI
D
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as flooding? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11)
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? ((# 1 :Pgs 5.2-1 - 5. .2-11)
f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals, or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or
through substantial loss of groundwater recharge
capability? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-11)
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 -5..2-11)
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ((#l:Pgs 5.2-1 - 5..2-
11)
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (#l:Pgs
5.2-1 -5..2-11)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially Less Than No
Significant Significant Impact
Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
D ISI D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (#l:Pgs 5.3-
1 - 5.3~12)
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#l:Pgs 5.3-1
-5.3-12)
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? ((#l:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
d) Create objectionable odors? ((#1 :Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3-12)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the
proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#l: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)? (#l:Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7.22)
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
0 Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
(#l:Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7.22)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#1 :Pgs 5.7-1 -
5.7.22)
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D D
D
D
D
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result
in impacts to:
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1 - 5.4-24)
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(#l:Pgs 5.4-1 -5.4-24)
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (#l:Pgs 5.4-1
- 5.4-24)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
n
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
n
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
n
n
n
No
Impact
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the
proposal?
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
(#l: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? (#l: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? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5
& 5.13-1 -5.13-9)
D
D
D
n
n
n
n
n
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides,
chemicals or radiation)? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 - 5.10.1-5)
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -
5.10.1-5)
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1 -5.10.1-5)
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (#l:Pgs 5.10.1-1-5.10.1-5)n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
n
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (#l:Pgs 5.9-1 - 5.9-
15)
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (#1 :Pgs 5.9-
I -5.9-15)
D D n
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect
upon, or result in a need for new or altered government
services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.5-1 - 5.12.5-6)
b) Police protection? (#l:Pgs 5.12.6-1 -5.12.6-4)
c) Schools? (#l:Pgs 5.12.7.1 -5.12.7-5)
D
D
nn nnn
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
(l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 -5.12.8-7)
e) Other governmental services? (#l: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:
a) Power or natural gas? (#l:Pgs 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.1-5 &
5.13-1 -5.13-9)
b) Communications systems? (#l:Pgs. 5.12.1-1 - 5.12.8-7)
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 - 5.12.3-7)
d) Sewer or septic tanks? (#l:Pgs 5.12.3-1 -5.12.3-7)
e) Storm water drainage? (# 1 :Pg 5.2-8)
f) Solid waste disposal? (#l:Pgs 5.12.4-1 - 5.12.4-3)
g) Local or regional water supplies? (#l:Pgs 5.12.2-1 -
5.12.3-7)
Potential \\
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
D
D
D
Less Than
Significant
Impact
D
D
D
D
D
D
No
Impact
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? (#l:Pgs
5.11-1 -5.11-5)
c) Create light or glare? (#l:Pgs 5.11-1 -5.11-5)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-
10)
c) Affect historical resources? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (#l:Pgs
5.8-1 -5.8-10)
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (#l:Pgs 5.8-1 - 5.8-10)
XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (#1 :Pgs 5.12.8-1 -
5.12.8-7)
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (#l:Pgs
5.12.8-1 -5.12.8-7)
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
Rev. 03/28/96
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources).
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?
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?
Potentially
Significant
Impact
D
Potential ly
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
o
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
D
D D
D D
Rev. 03/28/96
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The project involves the development of an automobile dealership on the west side of Car
Country Drive within the Car Country Specific Plan (SP19) area. The improvements will
consist of a 5113 square foot display and administrative building and a 5722.5 square foot
service building that will have 12 service bays. The balance of the site will consist of
landscape areas and paving for onsite employee and customer parking and for the storage
of vehicles for sale. The site is a previously graded pad that slopes gently (6%)
downward to the west and is currently being used for vehicle storage. The site contains
non-native grasses and forbs. The western edge of the site has a 2:1 downslope to an
adjacent auto dealership and is a landscaped manufactured slope with eucalyptus trees
and various ornamental shrubs. The project is located within the coastal zone.
10 Rev. 03/28/96
II. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
B. Environmental Impact Discussion
1. Landuse: The site is landuse designated for Regional Retail and zoned for General
Commercial. The site is also within a Specific Plan (SP19) that designates the areas
uses as automobile dealerships. The proposed automobile dealership is consistent
with the Specific Plan.
2. Population: The proposed commercial project will not impact population
projections, induce substantial growth nor displace existing housing.
3. Geology: Because the site was previously graded, not in proximity to major faults
and is not within a flood prone area, there is little chance of fault rupture, seismic
shaking or failure, flooding, or subsidence.
4. Water: The site will result in an increase of surface runoff. There are drainage
facilities in place to accommodate the increase in surface runoff and no impacts will
result. The project will be conditioned to follow NPDES standards for water quality.
5. 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.
6. Transportation/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
11 Rev. 03/28/96
traffic: however. 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by
regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These
generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along
Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a
number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management
performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation
associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been
recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the
provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop
alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks,
pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional
circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a
failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not
within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General
Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of
the project or are included as conditions of project approval. 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.
Biological: The site, being void of significant vegetation and it's current use as
a vehicle storage lot, does not have any biological significance.
12 Rev. 03/28/96
Items 8 through 15: Because the site is an infill project on an existing pregraded
pad with public services and utilities available to the site, there will not be am
significant impacts related to energy and mineral resources, hazards, noise, public
services, utilities and service systems, aesthetics, cultural resources or recreational
opportunities.
III. EARLIER ANALYSES USED
The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of
Carlsbad Planning Department located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California. 92009.
(760) 438-1161, extension 4471.
1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update
(MEIR 93-01), dated March 1994, City of Carlsbad Planning Department.
13 Rev. 03/28/96
LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
None
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
Not applicable
14 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
15 Rev. 03/28/96