HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-04; Design Review Board; Resolution 2321
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 232
A RESOLUTION OF THE DESIGN REVIEW BOARD OF
THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE
DECLARATION FOR A MAJOR REDEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT TO
ALLOW THE CONTINUED USE AND FUTURE
REDEVELOPMENT OF THE ARMY AND NAVY
ACADEMY GENERALLY LOCATED EAST AND WEST
OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD, BETWEEN MOUNTAIN
VIEW DRIVE AND BEECH AVENUE. APPLICANT: ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
MASTER SITE PLAN
CASE NO: RP-94-02KDP 94-02
WHEREAS, the Design Review Board did on the 6th day of September, 1995,
and the 4th of October, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to
consider said request, and
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony
and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and
considering any written comments received, the Design Review Board considered all factors
relating to the Negative Declaration.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Design Review
Board as follows:
A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Design
Review Board hereby RECOMMENDS APPROVAL of the Negative
Declaration according to Exhibit "ND", dated June 16, 1995, and "PII", dated
June 5,1995 attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following
findings:
Fi ndi nps:
1. The Design Review Board of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyzed and
considered Negative Declaration RP 94-02/CDP 94-02, the environmental impacts
therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to recommending
approval of the project. Based on the EIA Part-11 and comments thereon, the
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Design Review Board finds that there is no substantial evidence the project will have
a significant effect on the environment and thereby recommends approval of the
Negative Declaration.
2. The Design Review Board finds that the Negative Declaration RP 94-02/CDP 94-02
reflects the independent judgement of the Design Review Board of the City of
Carlsbad.
3. The City's MEIR found that air quality and circulation impacts are significant and
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of overriding
considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as to those
effects, no additional environmental document Is required.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Design
Review Board of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of October, 1995 by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Vice-Chairperson Welshons, Board Members Cornpas,
Marquez, Savary, and Vessey
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN None
KIIbl wELs"S, Vice-Chairperson
DESIGN REVIEW BOARD ATEST
/
EVAN BECKER
Housing and Redevelopment Director
DRB RES0 NO. 232 -2-
. NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PROJECT ADDRESS/LOCATION: Cypress Avenue and Carlsbad Boulevard in the City
of Carlsbad, County of San Diego.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A Conceptual Master Site Plan for the redevelopment of
the private school campus, including the relocation, upgrade
and replacement of existing facilities and the addition of on
site parking.
The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project
pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and
the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, a
Negative Declkation (declaration that the project will not have a significant impact on the
environment) is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the
Planning Department.
A copy of the Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning
Department, 2075 Las Palmas Drive, Carlsbad, California 92009. Comments from the public
are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 30 days of
date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Jeff Gibson in the Planning Department
at (6 19) 438- 1 16 1, extension 4455.
DATED: JUNE 16, 1995
M1CHAEL.J. ROLdIdIUER
CASE NO: RP 94-02/CDP 94-O2/CUP 94-02 Planning Director
CASE NAME: ARMY & NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN
PUBLISH DATE: JUNE 16, 1995
J0:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad. California 92009-1576 (619) 438-1 161
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 94-02/CDP 94-02/CUP 94-02
DATE: June 5. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Amy & Naw Academy Master Site Plan
2. APPLICANT Thomas Cox Architect
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 3242 Halladav. Suite 204
Santa Ana. CA 92705
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: Februarv 2. 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRUTION: A ConceDtual Master Site Plan for the redevehment of the Drivate school
camms. including the relocation. uDmde and redacement of existing facilities and the addition of on site
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 - Energy and Mineral Resources - Aesthetics
- Water - Hazards - Cultural Resources
- X Air Quality - Noise - Recreation
- Transportation/Circulat ion
- Biological Resources
- Public Services
- Utilities and Service Systems
- 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 frnd 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 si@icant 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 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, if the
effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." 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 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 / MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ER,/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
CI
Planning Director S$naturk.' Date I
JG:vd
2 Rev. 3/28/95
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental
Lmpact 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 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 document, 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.
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
3 Rev. 3/28/95
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 XI 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:
Conflict with general plan designation
or zoning? (Source #(s): #1)
a)
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans .
or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction
over the project? ( 1
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the
vicinity? ( 1
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations
(e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts
from incompatible land uses)? ( 1
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established 'community (including a low-
income or minority community)? ( )
n. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( 1
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either
directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects
in an undeveloped area or extension of major
infrastructure)? ( 1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact impact
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( - -
5 Rev. 3/28/95
-.
Issues (and Suppaning Infarmatim !hurces):
HI. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
Fault rupture? ( )
potentially
Potentially UOleSS LessThan
Significant
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impac t Impact
Seismic ground shaking? ( )
Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
Landslides or mudflows? ( . )
Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
Subsidence of the land? ( )
Expansive soils? ( )
Unique geologic or physical features? ( )
IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? ( )
b) Exposure of people or property to water related
hazards such as flooding? ( )
6 Rev. 3/28/95
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g.
temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ( )
d) Changes in the amount of surface water
in any water body? ( )
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdesS LessTban
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
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? ( ) - -
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ( ' )
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( )
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available for
public water supplies? ( )
V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to - X an existing or projected air quality violation? ( #1 ) -
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ( ) - -
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature,
or cause any change in climate? ( ) - -
d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) - -
7 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Suppming Informatian Sources):
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
Potenti ally
Significant
Potentially UdeSS Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( #2 ) - -
Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp cwes or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( #2 ) - -
Inadequate emergency access or access to
nearby uses? ( #2 )
Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (See Site Plan)
Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( #2 )
Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( )
Rail, waterborne or air traffic
impacts? (See Site Plan)
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.
Would the proposal result in impacts to:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their
habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish,
insects, animals, and birds? ( )
b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage
trees)? ( )
8 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Suppatiq Infamarim Sources):
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?( 1
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
hpact Incarporated Impact 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? ( ) - -
IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
A risk of accidental explosion or release of
hazardous substances (including, but not limited to:
oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation? ( ) - -
Possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) - -
The creation of any health hazard or
potential health hazard? ( 1
Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
9 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting Mumaticn Sources):
e) Increase fue hazard in areas with flammable
brush, grass, or trees? ( 1
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:
Fire protection? ( 1
Police protection? ( 1
Schools? ( 1
Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( 1
Other governmental services? ( 1
XU. 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? ( 1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Impact Incorporated Impact Impact
10 Rev. 3/28/95
Issues (and Supporting lnfamatim Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 1
e) Storm water drainage? ( 1
f) Solid waste disposal? ( 1
g) Local or regional water supplies? ( 1
XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ( )
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic
effect? (See Landscape Plan)
c) Create light or glare? ( 1
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
Disturb paleontological resources? ( #3 )
Disturb archaeological resources? ( #3 )
Affect historical resources? ( #3 )
Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( #3 )
Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( #3 )
Potentially
Pote ntiall y UllleSS LessThan
Significant
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Lmpac t Incorporated Impact Impact
11 Rev. 3/28/95
-.-
Issues (and Supporting Infmatim sourceS):
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdesS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant No
Imp t Incorporated Impact Impact
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recieational facilities? ( 1- -
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ( 1 - -
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 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? - -
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 substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
12 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 - (See Source Document No. 1).
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 - (See discussion under Air Quality and Mandatory Findings).
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.
13 Rev. 3/28/95
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environment a1 Setting and Proiect Background:
The Army and Navy Academy is located on 15.89 acres and is an existing private junior and senior high school
for boys. The school currently has dormitories to accommodate 296 students, with facilities that include faculty
housing, academic halls, a library, chapel, dinning hall, gym, infiiary, athletic fields, pool, administrative offices,
25 on site parking spaces, and maintenance buildings. The campus is located in an area of mixed land use which
includes existing commercial and residential land uses, a city park, State Parks and Recreation facility, and major
highway and railroad transportation corridors. The campus contains a number of buildings and facilities surrounded
by ornamental planting and lawn, and a large grass athletic field. Much of the project area has been disturbed by
construction activities that have taken place since the first buildings on site were constructed in the 1920's.
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain, has an average rainfall of approximately 13 inches, and
moderate temperatures. Geologically the site is located on Pleistocene marine and marine terrace deposits. The
land type is Terrace Escarpment, characterized by 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine
sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. Vegetation includes introduced eucalyptus trees, rubber trees, box shrubs
of various species, roses, and other decorative plants. Approximately 80 percent of the ground surface is covered
with non-native grass (Archaeological Survey Report, May 1995).
The project consists of a conceptual &er site plan for the school that would guide the future renovation of the
campus facilities. The master site plan would not grant specific discretionary entitlement to construct any of the
facilities, but rather, provide a master plan framework for the review of future land use development permits. The
master site plan would coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private improvements to the campus
and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall architectural and land use design of the school. For the
actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown on the plan, the developer would apply for
an individual development permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City codes and policies,
conformance with the master site plan, including the proposed design guidelines, and impact on the environment.
Each future development pennit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific
environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. For example, sufficient grading,
drainage, and building details, and geotechnical analysis necessary to assess potential significant visual and geologic
impacts has not been provided as part of this conceptual plan. However, some technical analysis, such as a traffic
study and cultural resource report have been prepared as part of the master site plan, and can be utilized as a data
base for the environmental review of future development permits.
In addition to the technical analysis conducted as part of the master site plan, the City has certified a Final Master
Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The Gertified Master ER is on file in the
Planning Department. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitigation for
project's that are consistent with the plan, including projects within the Village Redevelopment area.
The master site plan is a conceptual land use plan which covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of
existing land uses and facilities on an existing and highly disturbed infill site. The plan does not constitute the
addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school, therefore, the following
"environmental evaluation categories" either result in "no impact" or are not applicable due to the nature of the
project and there is not a discussion or evaluation in the text of this Initial Study:
14 Rev. 3/28/95
I.
II.
VII
-
LAND USE AND PLANNING:
d)*)
POPULATION AND HOUSING:
a)-c)
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
a)-e)
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
a)-4
E. HAZARDS:
a>-e)
X. NOISE:
a)-b)
XI. PUBLIC SERVICES:
a)-e)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS:
a)%)
XV. RECREATION:
a)-b1
XIII. AESTHETICS:
c1
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The private school is consistent with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan. In addition, private
schools are permitted in residential areas within the City with the approval of a conditional use permit. The school
has been located on the site since 1937 and over the years the campus has been considered to be compatible with
the surrounding land uses.
15 Rev. 3/28/95
V. AIRQUALITY:
The continued operation of the school land use was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan, and will result
in gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result 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 land uses
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. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION:
The school would generate approximately 1400 average daily trips and a Traffic Study was prepared for the master
site plan by Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associates, Inc., dated December 7, 1993. The study concluded that the
surrounding and existing circulation system in the area was adequate to handle the traffic generated by the school
at buildout of the site plan with no significant adverse impacts to road segments or intersections in the
neighborhood. As the development of the school occurs, the developer would be required to improve the site's
street frontages along Pacific Avenue, Ocean Street, Cypress Avenue, Garfield Street, Beech Avenue, and Mountain
View Drive. Frontage improvements may include street widening, curb/gutter and sidewalks, and the
undergrounding of utilities. These street improvements would facilitate the movement of vehicles and pedestrians
through the area, and provide for continued and adequate access to the neighborhood. The project would not
impact the railroad to the east of the project site nor conflict with policies supporting alternate transportation. The
school has major street frontage along Carlsbad Boulevard for the provision of bus stops if required by NTCD.
XIII. AESTHETICS:
Buildout of the master site plan would result in the removal of approximately 30 trees, however, the conceptual
landscape plan indicates that up to 11 1 additional trees would be planted on the property, therefore, a significant
visual impact to the area from the removal of mature trees would not result.
16 Rev. 3/28/95
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A Phase I Archeological Survey and Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Academy was
prepared by Phillips Research Services, dated May, 1995. The report indicates that the proposed plans for the
future development of the campus would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources and no further
evaluation or work was recommended by the consultant.
XVI. MANDATORY FINDING OF SIGNIFICANCE:
The continued operation of the school land use was considered and included in the updated 1994 General Plan.
The project will result in increased traffic volumes, and roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate the
City's buildout Wic; 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 existing land uses covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including
this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required.
Source Documents: All source documents are on file in the Planning Department at 2075 Las Palmas Drive.
1) Carlsbad General Plan and Master Environmental Impact Report, dated September 1994.
2) Cypress Avenue Vacation Traffic Study, Robert Kahn, John Kain & Associcates, Inc., dated December 7,
1993.
3) Phase I Archeological Survey and Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Academy,
Phillips Research Services, dated May, 1995.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 3/28/95
ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (TF APPLICABLE)
N/A
18 Rev. 3/28/95
APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTFY THAT I HAVE REWEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
Date Signature
19 Rev. 3/28/95