HomeMy WebLinkAboutPIP 95-06; Carlsbad Corporate Centre Lots 33 & 34; Planned Industrial Permit (PIP) (15)47 r‘ -.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. PIP 95-06/HDP 95-08
DATE: June 2, 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Carlsbad Corporate Centre
2. APPLICANT Bruce Steinmber
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 24212 Sargeant Road
Ramona. CA. 92065
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: May 9,1995
5. PROJECT DESCRETION: Construction of a 124.504 sauare foot, two-story. tilt-uD concrete
offce/manufacturing/warehouse building in the Carlsbad Airport Centre.
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 - X Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service Systems
- Geological Problems - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
X - Mandatory Findings of Significance
1 Rev. 3/28/95
DETERMINATION.
(To be completed by the Lead Agency).
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT/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 effed 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 pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier
EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, a Notice
of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
0
0
Planner Signature Date
6 /1+/4( Planning Directo’rlSignadde Date [
2 Rev. 3/28/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical,
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration,
or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration.
0 A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to,
or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards.
0 “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
0 “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.”
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
b “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
0 Based on an “EIA-Part II”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the
environment, but &l 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.
0 A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any
of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment.
3 Rev. 3/28/95
e 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.
e 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 Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the level of
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in
reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance.
A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Infmatim Sources):
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS LessThan
Sbnificant Mitigation Significant No
hpact Incorporated Impact Impact
Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (EIR
81-06, page 90) -
Conflict with applicable environmental plans or
policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the
project? (EIR 81-06, page 50) -
Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
(EIR 8 1-06, page 90) -
Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible
land uses)? (EIR 8 1-06, page 86) -
Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or
minority community)? (EIR 81-06, page 90) -
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? (EIR 81-06, page 107) -
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area
or extension of major infrastructure)? (EIR 8 1-06, page
107) -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? (EIR 8 1-06, page 90) -
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or
expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? (EIR 8 1-06, page 80) -
b) Seismic ground shaking? (EIR 81-06, page 80)
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
5 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Infamatian Sources):
Potentially Significant
Impact
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? (EIR
81-06, page 82) -
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? (EIR 81-06, page
83 and EIR 93-01, page 5.1-9) -
e) Landslides or mudflows? (EIR 81-06, page 82) -
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? (EIR 81-
06, page 77) -
g) Subsidence of the land? (EIR 81-06, Page 77) -
h) Expansive soils? (EIR 81-06, page 82) -
i) Unique geologic or physical features? (EIR 8 1-06,
page, 77) -
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
rate and amount of surface runoff? (EIR 81-06, page
84) -
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? (EIR 81-06, page 84) -
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved
oxygen or turbidity)? (EIR 81-06, page 84) -
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water
body? (EIR 81-06, page 84) -
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements? (EIR 81-06, page 84) -
Potentially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Inmpurated Impact Impact
Unless LessThan
6 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Infmation Sources):
f) Change 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?
(EIR 81-06, page 84) -
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? (EIR
81-06, page 84) -
Potentially
Potentially Unless LessThan
Significant
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? (EIR 8 1-06, page 84) -
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies? (EIR 8 1 -
06, page 84) -
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation? (EIR 81-06,
page 71; EIR 93-01, page 5.34) - X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? (See
Discussion) -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate? (See Discussion) -
d) Create objectionable odors? (See Discussion) -
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? (See
Discussion and EIR 8 1-06 pages 3 1-39) X -
b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)? (See Discussion) - -
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses?
(EIR 81-06 pages 31-39) - -
X -
X
X
-
-
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
X -
7 Rev. 3/28/95
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? (See
Discussion)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? (See
Discussion; EIR 93-01 page 5.7-6)
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (EIR
81-06 pages 31-39)
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? (See
Discussion)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
(including but not limited to plants, fish, insects,
animals, and birds? (EIR 81-06 pages 50-57)
Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? (EIR
8 1-06 pages 50-57)
Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak
forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? (EIR 81-06 pages 50-57)
Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
(EIR 81-06 pages 50-57)
Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? (EIR 8 1-06
pages 50-57)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? (EIR
93-01 page 5.13)
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient rnanner? (EIR 93-01 page 5.13)
Potentially
Significant
Impact
LessThan
significant
Impact
-
-
No
Impact
X -
X -
- X
X -
8 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Information sourceS):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
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? (EIR 93-01 page 5.13) -
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? (See Project Description) -
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan? (EIR 93-01, pages
5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) -
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
hazard? (See Project Description) -
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards? (EIR 93-01; pages 5.10.2-1 to 5.10.2-9) -
e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass, or trees? (See Project Description) -
X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increases in existing noise levels? (See Project
Description) -
b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? (EIR 93-01
pages 73-76) -
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? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.5-1)
b) Police protection? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.6-1)
c) Schools? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.7-1)
Porntially
Significant
Mitigation Significant No
Incorporated Impact Impact
UIlleSS LessThan
9 Rev. 3/28/95
Potentially
Significaut
Potentially UdaS
Significant Mitigation
Impact Incorpurated
LessThan
Significant
Impact
-
-
No
Impact
X
X
-
-
Issues (and Supporting Infurmation Sources):
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (See
Discussion)
e) Other governmental services? (See Discussion)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the
proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or
substantial alterations to the following utilities:
Power or natural gas? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.1-1)
Communications systems? (See Discussion)
Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.2-1)
Sewer or septic tanks? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.3-1)
Storm water drainage? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.3-1)
Solid waste disposal? (EIR 93-01 page 5.12.4-1)
Local or regional water supplies? (EIR 93-01 page
5.12.2-1)
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? (EIR 93-01
page 5.11-1)
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? (EIR
93-01 page 5.11-1)
c) Create light or glare? (EIR 93-01 page 5.11-1)
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? (EIR 8 1-06 page 44)
b) Disturb archaeological resources? (EIR 8 1-06 page 44)
c) Affect historical resources? (EIR 81-06 page 44)
10 Rev. 3/28/95
Potentially
significant
Impact Issues (and Supporting Information Saurces):
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (EIR 81-06
page 44) -
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area? (EIR 8146 page 44) -
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional
parks or other recreational facilities? (EIR 93-01 page
5.12.8-1) -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? (EIR 93-01
page 5.12.8-1) -
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wild life 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? -
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) - X
Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly? -
T
Potentially
Significant
UdeSS
Mitigation
Inmporated
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
LessThan
Significant No
Impact Impac t
11 Rev. 3/28/95
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process,
one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section
15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets:
Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
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.
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.
12 Rev. 3/28/95
r‘
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
This 124,504 square foot tilt-up concrete building is to be constructed on pregmded lots within an existing
industrial park (Airport Business Centre). Building height will not exceed the maximum of 35 feet. Design
and materials of the proposed building will be typical of the industrial area. Access to the site will be
provided via two driveway cuts on Camino Vida Roble and parking will be provided onsite at the ratios
required by the City of Carlsbad Zoning Ordinance.
A variety of landscape materials will be installed substantially in conformance with a conceptual landscape
plan. As stated by the project applicant, the uses conducted within the building will be limited to
administration, warehousing and assembly. Typically such uses will not require an above average need for
energy consumption nor will they create effects (i.e.; noise, health or fire hazards) that will impact the
surrounding exterior environment.
The following sections within this Environmental Impact Assessment Form Part 11 have been fully addressed
within
I.
II. m.
Iv.
V.
VI.
VII.
VIII.
Ix.
X.
XI.
XII.
Xm.
XIv. xv.
other documents which have been cited and require no additional discussion:
Land Use and Planning a)b)c)d)e
Population and Housing a)b)c
Geologic Problems a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)i
Water a)b)c)d)e)f)g)h)i
Air Quality b)c)d
Transportation/Circulation c)e
Biological Resources a)b)c)d)e
Energy and Mineral Resources a)b)c
Hazards a)b)c)d)e
Noise a)b
Public Services a)b)c
Utilities and Service Systems a)c)d)e)f)g
Aesthetics a)b)c
Cultural Resources a)b)c)d)e
Recreation a)b
V. AIR OUALITY:
a) The implementation of subsequent
General Plan will result in increased
projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These
subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides
onitrogen 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
13 Rev. 3/28/95
VI.
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 ‘Inon-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.
In that this project site is located within an existing industrial park, which is located a minimum of 1 mile
from the closest residence, no sensitive receptors (people susceptible to respiratory distress) are likely to
be impacted by this project.
Because the project will be restricted to a maximum height of 35’ and setback a minimum of 98’ from the
nearest potential adjacent structure no impacts to air movement or climate are anticipated.
The project is subject to performance standards which require uses to be operated so as not to emit matter
causing unpleasant odors which are perceptible to the average person while within or beyond the lot
containing such uses.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
a) The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994
General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate
buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-
traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange
areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway
improvements, a number of intersections are projected to fail the City’s adopted Growth Management
performance standards at buildout.
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision
of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation
such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3)
participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from
a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction
of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have
either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval.
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,
14 Rev. 3/28/95
r‘
therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EXR 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.
All project circulation improvements have been designed to comply with minimum engineering design and
safety standards therefore no circulation or traffic safety impacts are anticipated.
Parking has been provided according to the standards identified in the Carlsbad zoning Ordinance.
The project complies with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. Palomar Airport Road and
College Boulevard have bike lanes and the North County Transit District operates a bus route along Palomar
Airport Road.
The project is not located in close proximity to a railroad or navigable waterway, therefore, no rail or
waterborne impacts are anticipated. The project also complies with the McClellan Palomar Airport Land
Use Plan regarding location of buildings relative to air traffic.
PUBLIC SERVICES:
City services such as public street maintenance and administration are provided and those services are paid
for out of the General Fund. The proposed project will contribute to the fund through the payment of
building fees and annual tax assessments. Payment of the fees and taxes is a guarantee that the services
will be provided.
The City has predetermined the level of services needed for the various segments of the community and
through the General Plan the services required by the proposed project have been anticipated and will be
provided.
UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS:
Communication systems are typically provided by the various companies that provide such services. The
project will not require an increase in the core communications system nor will it require the development
of a new system in order to be adequately serviced.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE:
See the discussion under Air Quality and Traffic/Circulation.
15 Rev. 3/28/95
XVII. EARLIER ANALYSIS
The project site is located within a planned industrial park which was analyzed in an earlier EIR (EIR 81-6). This
proposed project is consistent with the anticipated development analyzed in that EIR.
III. SOURCE DOCUMENTS - (NOTE: All of the source documents are on file in the Carlsbad Planning Departmen
located at 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, CA. 92009, Phone (619) 438-1 161).
1. Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Business Center (EIR 81-6), WESTEC Services, Inc., March 1982.
2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-01), City of
Carlsbad Planning Department, March 1994.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
A'M'ACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
16 Rev. 3/28/95
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WlTH 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
17 Rev. 3/28/95