Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCT 97-13; Carlsbad Oaks North; Tentative Map (CT) (14)ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: SP-2I1/CT97-13/HDP97-10/SUP97-07/GPA97-05/ZCA97-05 DATE: June 9. 1998 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Oaks North APPLICANT: Techbuilt Construction Corporation ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3557 Kenyon Street San Diego. CA. 92110. (619)233-1663 DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: July 10. 1997 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Specific Plan. General Plan Amendment Zone Change. Tentative Map. Hillside Development Permit and Special Use Permit to develop a 414 acre planned industrial park to the north of Palomar Airport Road at the future intersection of Faraday Avenue and El Fuerte Street. The project will consist of 23 industrial lots ranging in size from 3.9 acres to 22.9 acres, 200.7 acres of open space, the extension of Faraday Avenue from its eastern terminus within the City of Vista to Orion Way near the Carlsbad Safety Center and the off-site construction of a gravity sewer line (south Agua Hedionda trunkline). 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 £<] Transportation/Circulation | | Public Services [X] Biological Resources £<] Utilities & Service Systems | | Energy & Mineral Resources [xl Aesthetics [Xl Hazards ^ Cultural Resources ^ Noise | | Recreation [X] Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) | | 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 EIR/Neg Dec 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 EIR/Neg Dec, pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR/Neg Dec, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared. Planner Sigrfafurtr 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.'1 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). LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? Source #(s): b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Potentially Significant Impact D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D D Less Than No Significant Impact Impact D D II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local I—I population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly i—i or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable [—I housing? D D D D D D III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? (#1: pgs. 9-11) b) Seismic ground shaking? (#1: pgs. 9-11) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (#l:pg. 11) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? e) Landslides or mudflows? (#1: pgs. 12-13) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? g) Subsidence of the land? h) Expansive soils? (#1; pg 14) i) Unique geologic or physical features? n n nn n nnEI n nnn nnn nn nnn n n IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? D n n n n 5 Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? f) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? h) Impacts to groundwater quality? i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies? Potentially Significant Impact D n D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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? (#2:Pgs 5.3-1-5.3-12) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (#2:Pgs 5.3-1-5.3-12) c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause any change in climate? ((#2:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 12) d) Create objectionable odors? (#2:Pgs 5.3-1 - 5.3- 12) D D D D D D D D IEI D IEI VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (#2: 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)? ((#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7- 22)) c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? (#2: Pgs 5.7-1 -5.7-22) d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ((#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (#2: Pgs 5.7-1 - 5.7-22) D D D D D D D D D D D D D D VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES, result in impacts to: Would the proposal 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? b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact Impact Unless 'Impact Mitigation Incorporated KI n n n a a a EE a a a IEI a a aa a aa a a a IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or trees? D D D D D D D a X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? e) Other governmental services? D D D D D D D D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? b) Communications systems? c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? e) Storm water drainage? f) Solid waste disposal? g) Local or regional water supplies? XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway? b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect? c) Create light or glare? Potentially Significant Impact D D D D D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Dn n D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? b) Disturb archaeological resources? c) Affect historical resources? d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? nnnn n n nnn Dn XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop belov 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? D D D D D D Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. LAND USE AND PLANNING a.)This project will convert 1.9 acres of General Plan Open Space to Planned Industrial and 67.5 acres of Planned Industrially designated property to Open Space. The application includes a General Plan Amendment for this purpose. The property is currently zoned Planned Community (primarily a residential zone) and is proposed to be rezoned to PM (Planned Industrial) to enable the development of the project and ensure compatibility with the PI General Plan designation. b) The project will need to be designed to be consistent with the City's Habitat Management Plan. c) This industrial project is located immediately adjacent to existing single residences to the east in the City of Vista and the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the north. Implementation of this planned industrial project could result in significant nuisance impacts (traffic, manufacturing and warehouse operations related noise, light and glare, aesthetic and air emissions) to the single family residences and direct or indirect biological impacts to the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve. d) There are no agricultural resources (soils) or operations on or adjacent to the project site. e) The property is designated for Planned Industrial development and is surrounded by industrial uses to the south and industrially designated property to the west. The development of the property with industrial uses including the extension of Faraday Avenue from Melrose Avenue through to El Camino Real will however disrupt the existing single family residential neighborhood to the east of the property. II. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) The development of 198.6 acres of Planned Industrial uses upon the subject property is well below the Planned Industrial development projected (276.7 acres) in the Zone 16 Local Facilities Management Plan. Additionally, this non-residential project will not vary from or effect population projections. c) The subject property has an industrial designation and there are no dwelling units on the property which will be displaced. III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS c) and e) Alluvial soils underlie most of the main canyon bottom and the numerous hillside drainages on the site. These alluvial soils have a potential for liquefaction and should therefore be excavated and recompacted. The north facing hillsides within the southern portion of the site may be underlain by ancient landslides. The construction of extensive slope buttress fills will be required in cut slopes and beneath fill slopes in this area. (Woodward-Clyde, June 1990) 10 Rev. 03/28/96 IV. WATER a) and b) Implementation of this project will increase the potential for the flooding of Agua Hedionda Creek at the Rancho Carlsbad Mobile Home Park. This potential flooding impact can however be adequately mitigated through the construction of a floodwater detention basin along Agua Hedionda Creek (Howard Chang, April 1997). c) Implementation of this project could result in significant water quality impacts associated with the runoff of urban pollutants and erosion of soils into a tributary drainage of Agua Hedionda Creek, which runs east to west through the center of the property. V. 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. VI. CIRCULATION: a) Implementation of this project could result in significant traffic impacts at a number of intersections (El Fuerte, Businesspark Ave., and El Camino Real) along Palomar Airport Road. Mitigation of Level of Service (LOS) traffic impacts will require the construction of Faraday Avenue westward to El Camino Real and eastward to the City of Vista. 11 Rev. 03/28/96 The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include 1) measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. e) This project will be conditioned to dedicate a trail easement for Trail Segment #26. If the City does not accept dedication, the trail shall be constructed by the developer. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) - complementation of this project will result in significant biological impacts to: 38.9 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub (CSS), 162.5 acres of Southern Mixed Chaparral (SMC), 1.9 acres of Coast Live Oak Woodland, .5 acre of Valley Needlegrass Grassland, .5 acre of Southern Willow Scrub, .7 acre of Cismontane Alkali Marsh (CAM), California adolphia (38 individuals), Summer-holly, San Diego golden-stars, and Ashy spike-moss. The subject property also functions as important sub-regional wildlife corridor along Agua Hedionda Creek and it's tributary which flows east to west through the site. Implementation of this project could have an adverse, significant impact on this habitat linkage (Dudek and Associates, December 1997). The off-site construction of Faraday Avenue to El Camino Real will result in significant impacts to: 2.7 acres CSS, 1.6 acres SMC, 2.8 acres of Scrub Oak Chaparral (Nuttall's scrub oak), 1.1 acres of Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, .01 acre CAM, .04 acre Disturbed Wetland, California adolphia, summer-holly and southwestern spiny rush (Dudek and Associates, November 1997). 12 Rev. 03/28/96 Biological impacts associated with the off-site construction of the South Agua Hedionda Sewer pipeline and indirect biological impacts to the Los Monos Canyon Reserve should also be evaluated. VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES a) - c) This project does not conflict with any adopted energy conservation plans nor use non- renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. The property does not contain any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or residents of the US. IX. HAZARDS a and c) This project could result in significant hazard impacts to the adjacent residential use to the east associated with the accidental release of hazardous chemicals from industrial uses that are proposed on adjacent lots 1,15 and 16. e) The subject property is surrounded by flammable vegetation (native habitat). Development of this project shall require the implementation of a fire suppression landscape plan to mitigate potential wildfire impacts. X. NOISE a) The proposed location of manufacturing or warehouse uses upon lots 1, 15 and 16 that are adjacent to the existing single family residences to the east could result in significant noise nuisance impacts to the residences. Traffic noise impacts will occur to the residences to the east of the project site associated with the additional traffic generated upon Faraday Avenue which will be extended eastward to Melrose Avenue and westward to El Camino Real. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES a) - e) No significant public service impacts are anticipated. XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS d) Implementation of this project shall require the construction of major sewer infrastructure including the off-site South Agua Hedionda Sewer trunkline. XIII. AESTHETICS b) Mass grading of this undulating hillside property to create large non-residential pads and tall manufactured slopes (up to 60 feet in height) will result in significant topographic and visual impacts. c) This project will create light and glare impacts to the adjacent residents to the east and the existing wildlife within the Dawson Los Monos Canyon Reserve to the north. XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES 13 Rev. 03/28/96 a) - b) A previous cultural resource survey of the subject property (R. Carrico, 1973) identified several significant archaeological sites which require further analysis and mitigation. XV. RECREATIONAL a) - b) This project shall be required to dedicate an easement for and construct City Trail Segment No. 26. Otherwise, no impact to recreational opportunities is anticipated. XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE b) This project will result in cumulatively significant regional air quality and traffic impacts in association with the build out of the City of Carlsbad and other surrounding jurisdictions. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^) ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF 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