HomeMy WebLinkAbout1995-10-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 37961
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
e 0
PLANNING COMMISSION NO. 3796
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIAAPPROVINGA
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF
THE ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY GENERALLY
LOCATED EAST AND WEST OF CARLSBAD
BOULEVARD, BETWEEN MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE
AND BEECH AVENUE.
CASE NAME ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY
CASE NO: CUP 94-02
MASTER SITE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 6th day of Septembe
11
12
WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all te: 13
to consider said request, and
and the 4th day of October, 1995, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed
' 4 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by st
considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all
relating to the Negative Declaration.
15
16
17
18
1 g Commission as follows:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the P
20 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct.
21
22
B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the P:
Commission hereby APPROVES the Negative Declaration accort
Exhibit "ND", dated June 16, 1995, and l'PII", dated June 5, 1995 a.
23
24
hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings:
Findings:
25
26
27
28
1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad has reviewed, analyz,
considered Negative Declaration CUP 94-02, the environmental impacts
identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to approval of the 1
Based on the EIA Part-I1 and comments thereon, the Planning Commissia
that there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect
environment and thereby approves the Negative Declaration.
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
e 0
2. The Planning Commission finds that the Negative Declaration CUP 94-02 :
the independent judgement of the Planning Commission of the City of Carl
3. The City’s MEIR found that air qualify and circulation impacts are signifia
adverse; therefore, the City Council adopted a statement of ove
considerations. The project is consistent with the General Plan and as tc
effects, no additional environmental document is required.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting
Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 4th day of 0
1995, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: Chairperson Welshons, Commissioners Compas, Erwin, P
Noble and Savary.
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commissioner Monroy
ABSTAIN: None
KIM Wl%SHONS, Chairperson
CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSIO
ATTEST
MICHAEL J. HOLZ~~ILLER
Planning Director
~
PC RES0 NO. 3796 -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 Declaration (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 (619) 438-1 161, extension 4455.
DATED: JUNE 16, 1995 rnm
MICHAEL J. HO&ILLER
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
JG:vd
2075 Las Palmas Drive - Carlsbad, California 92009-1 576 - (61 9) 438-11 6’
e 0
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART II
(TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT)
CASE NO. RP 94-021CDP 94-02/CUF
DATE: June 5. 1995
BACKGROUND
1. CASE NAME: Army & Navy Academy Master Site Plan
2. APPLICANT: Thomas Cox Architect
3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT 3242 Halladay. Suite 204
Santa Ana, CA 92705
(7 14) 557-4666
4. DATE EIA FORM PART I SUBMITTED: February 2, 1994
5. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A ConceDtual Master Site Plan for the redevelopment of the privatt
campus, including the relocation. upgrade and replacement of existing facilities and the addition o
parking.
SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving
one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact", or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mi
Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
- Land Use and Planning - Transportation/Circulation - Public Services
- Population and Housing - Biological Resources - Utilities and Service S
- 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
0 0
"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 effec
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 th'
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 standa
and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR / MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project.
Therefore, a Notice of Prior Compliance has been prepared.
-5- 12 , I ?W
Planner Sicnabe Date
b/\3/5 c Planning Director Si&aturk) Date
JG:vd
2 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
*.ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Enviro
Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Enviro
Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any 1
biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with infc
to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Dec
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 supp
an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is ad
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to proj
the one involved. A "No Impact," answer should be explained when there is no source document 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 impa
adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies.
"Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of m
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant
The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, an
explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
0 "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is sign
0 Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effecf
environment, but glJ potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlie
Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or r
pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation I
that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplemt
supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental d
have been incorporated into this document, then no additional environmental document is requirt
Compliance).
When "Potentially Sigmticant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepart
if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable stand
the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursua1
earlier EIR.
A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the projei
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 1
mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation mea:
agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Si
Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
3 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
I prepared.
An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limite
following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in ax
EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures thal
the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significanl
has not been made pursuant to an earlier Em, (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the
to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II analysis it is not possible to determine the
significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation me;
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 forr
DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to di:
mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant.
4 Rev. 3/28/95
e 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with general plan designation
Qf ZQ~g? (SOW% #(S); #I) -
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 cornmunity (including a low-
income or minority community)? ( 1 -
II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local
population projections? ( ) -
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 -
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable
housing? ( 1 -
Potentially
Significant
UIlleSS LessThan
Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact In
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
- -
5 Rev. 3/28/95
0 a
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the
proposal result in or expose people to potential
impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? ( )
b) Seismic ground shaking? ( )
c) Seismic ground failure, including
liquefaction? ( )
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( )
e) Landslides or mudflows? ( - )
f) Erosion, changes in topography or
unstable soil conditions from excavation,
grading, or fill? ( )
g) Subsidence of the land? ( )
h) Expansive soils? ( )
i) 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? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UIlleSS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated zmpac t In
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
6 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
Issues (and supporting lnformatian sources):
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? ( )
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
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? ( )
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated lmpact Ir
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
X - - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
7 Rev. 3/28/95
t 0 0
Issues (and Supporting Jnformation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant 1
Impact Incorporated Impact In:
VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ( #2 ) - - -
b) Hazards to safety from design features
(e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections)
or incompatible uses (e-g. farm equipment)? ( #2 ) - - -
c) Inadequate emergency access or access to
..
nearby uses? ( #2 ) - - -
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or
off-site? (See Site Plan)
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ( #2 )
- - -
- - -
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ( ) - - -
g) 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
I 0 e
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
hpact Incorporated Lmpac t h
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? ( ) - - -
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 hazard? ( 1
d) Exposure of people to existing sources
of potential health hazards? ( )
- - -
- - -
9 Rev. 312819:
I 0 e
Issues (and Supporting Infmation Sources):
Potentially
Significant
Impact
e) Increase frre 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:
a) Fire protection? ( 1 -
b) Police protection? ( ) -
c) Schools? ( 1 -
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? ( 1 -
e) Other governmental services? ( ) -
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? ( 1 -
Potentially
Significant
UdeSS Less Than Mitigation Significant
Incorporated Impact In
- -
- -
- -
-
-
-
-
-
-
- -
- -
- -
- -
10 Rev. 3/28/95
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
c) Local or regional water treatment or
distribution facilities? ( )
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( 1
Potentially
Significant
Potentially UdeSS Less Than
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact 11
- - -
- - -
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? ( )
XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ( #3 )
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ( #3 )
c) Affect historical resources? ( #3 )
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural
values? ( #3 )
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses
within the potential impact area? ( #3 )
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - x
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
- - -
11 Rev. 312819.
0 0
Issues (and Supporting Information Sources):
Potmially
Significant
Potentially Unless LessThan
Significant Mitigation Significant
Impact Incorporated Impact Ir
XV. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or
regional parks or other recrkational facilities? ( 1- - -
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 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) x - -
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
m 0
” 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 followin on attached sheets:
a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for revie - (See Source Document No. 1).
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 base
. ’ on the earlier analysis - (See discussion under Air Quality and Mandatory Findings).
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.
13 Rev. 312819:
m 0
-7 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION
Environmental Settinp and Proiect Backmound:
The Army and Navy Academy is located on 15.89 acres and is an existing private junior and senior hig
for boys. The school currently has dormitories to accommodate 296 students, with facilities that includ
housing, academic halls, a library, chapel, dinning hall, gym, infirmary, athletic fields, pool, administrativc
includes existing commercial and residential land uses, a city park, State Parks and Recreation facility, a
’ highway and railroad transportation corridors. The campus contains a.number of buildings and facilities su
by ornamental planting and lawn, and a large grass athletic field. Much of the project area has been dist
construction activities that have taken place since the first buildings on site were constructed in the 192
The project area is located within the Coastal Plain, has an average rainfall of approximately 13 inc
moderate temperatures. Geologically the site is located on Pleistocene marine and marine terrace depo:
land type is Terrace Escarpment, characterized by 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soj
sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. Vegetation includes introduced eucalyptus trees, rubber trees, bc
of various species, roses, and other decorative plants. Approximately 80 percent of the ground surface i:
with non-native grass (Archaeological Survey Report, May 1995).
The project consists of a conceptual master site plan for the school that would guide the future renovati
campus facilities. The master site plan would not grant specific discretionary entitlement to construct a
facilities, but rather, provide a master plan framework for the review of future land use development pem
master site plan would coordinate the provision and timing of the public and private improvements to thc
and provide a comprehensive framework for the overall architectural and land use design of the school.
actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown on the plan, the developer would
an individual development permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City codes and
conformance with the master site plan, including the proposed design guidelines, and impact on the envi
Each future development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential an(
environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. For example, sufficient
drainage, and building details, and geotechnical analysis necessary to assess potential significant visual and
impacts has not been provided as part of this conceptual plan. However, some technical analysis, such a:
study and cultural resource report have been prepared as part of the master site plan, and can be utilized
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 Fin;
Environmental Impact Report for an update of the 1994 General Plan. The certified Master EIR is on f
Planning Department. The Master EIR serves as the basis of environmental review and impact mitig
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 reno
existing land uses and facilities on an existing and highly disturbed infill site. The plan does not cons
addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school, therefore, the j
“environmental evaluation categories” either result in ’/no impact’’ or are not applicable due to the natr
project and there is not a discussion or evaluation in the text of this .Initial Study:
23 on site parking spaces, and maintenance buildings. The campus is located in an area of mixed land u
14 Rev. 3/28/95
1 0
1 I. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
d1-d
D, POPULATION AND HOUSING;
0
a>-c>
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
a1-d
VIII. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:
a>-c)
IX. HAZARDS:
a”
X. NOISE:
a1-W
XI, PUBLIC SERVICES:
a1-e)
XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS:
a>%>
XV. RECREATION:
a)-b)
XIII. AESTHETICS:
c1
I. LAND USE AND PLANNING:
The private school is consistent with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan. In additior
schools are permitted in residential areas within the City with the approval of a conditional use permit. Tf
has been located on the site since 1937 and over the years the campus has been considered to be compat
the surrounding land uses.
15 Rev. 3/28/95
* V. AIR QUALITY:
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 ElR 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 111 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
0
* XN. CULTURAL RESOURCES:
A Phase I Archeological Survey and Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy Acade
prepared by Phillips Research Services, dated May, 1995. The report indicates that the proposed plan:
future development of the campus would not result in significant impacts to cultural resources and nc
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 Gene
The project will result in increased traffic volumes, and roadway segments will be adequate to accommc
City's buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional
major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a
of intersections are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at bl
To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous m
measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR: These include measures to ensure the pro7
circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop alternative modes of transportation
trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) partici;
regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Intc
State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to contr
applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated
design of the project or hre included as conditions of project approval.
Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of'intel
at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is
"Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparati
EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolu
94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This state^
Overriding Considerations" applies to all existing land uses covered by the General Plan's Master ER, i
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
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 Dect
traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange a
1993.
3) Phase I Archeological Survey and Historical/Architectural Evaluation of the Army and Navy A
Phillips Research Services, dated May, 1995.
LIST MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE)
N/A
17 Rev. 3/28/95
m e
* ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE)
NIA
..
18 Rev. 3/28/91
s 0 0 . APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES
THIS IS TO CERTIEY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURE
AND CONCUR WITE-I THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT.
N/A
Date Signature
19 Rev. 312819: