Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-04-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 58931 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 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5893 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CA€USBAD, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING ADOPTION OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO ALLOW THE OPERATION OF THE CITY’S LEARNING CENTER GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF EUREKA PLACE BETWEEN BASSWOOD AVENUE AND CHESTNUT AVENUE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: LEARNING CENTER CASE NO.: CUP 04-12 WHEREAS, City of Carlsbad, “Developer/Owner,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as Lots 9 and 10 of Optimo Tract, Subdivision of Tract 234, Thum lands, Map #1681, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to the map thereof No. 1805, filed at request of First National Bank of Oceanside (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the 20th day of April 2005, 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 Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit “ND,” dated April 20, 2005 according to Exhibits “NOI” dated March 24, 2005, and “PII” dated March 1, 2005, attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 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 Findinm : 1. Th a. b. C. d. Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Negative Declaration CUP 04-12, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and the Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of April 2005, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Chairperson Segall, Commissioners Baker, Cardosa, Heineman, Montgomery, and Whitton NOES: Commissioner Dominguez ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JEFFRE N. SEGALL, C&rperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 5893 -2- - City of Carlsbad NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: LEARNINGCENTER PROJECTLOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EUREKA PLACE BETWEEN BASSWOOD AVENUE AND CHESTNUT AVENUE CASE NO: CUP 04- 12 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The rehabilitation and expansion of an existing structure, the demolition of an existing smaller structure, and the installation of a modular structure to accommodate the City Library’s Learning Center programs and the Head Start program DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EM Part 2) did not identi@ any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. 0 The proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. (Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). 0 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 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EM Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: A~ril20.2005, mrsuant to PC Resolution No. 5893 Lrz, ATTEST: DON NEU Assistant Planning Director 49 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us - City of Carlsbad NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: LEARNING CENTER PROJECTLOCATION: EAST SIDE OF EUREKA PLACE BETWEEN BASSWOOD CASE NO: CUP 04-12 AVENUE AND CHESTNUT AVENUE PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The rehabilitation and expansion of an existing structure, the demolition of an existing smaller structure, and the installation of a modular structure to accommodate the City Library’s Learning Center programs and the Head Start program PROPOSED DETERMINATION: 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, the initial study (EM Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Elaine Blackburn in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4621. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD March 24.2005 through April 13,2005 PUBLISH DATE March 24,2005 @ 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 0 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART Il (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 04-12 DATE: March 1,2005 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Learning Center LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City Of Carlsbad. 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Elaine Blackbum 760-602-462 1 PROJECT LOCATION: east side of Eureka Place between Basswood Avenue and Chestnut PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RM ZONING: R-1-7.500 OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): n/a PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project involves the rehabilitation and expansion of an existing structure, the demolition of an existing smaller structure, and the installation of a modular structure to accommodate the City Library’s Learning Center programs and the Head Start program. The project site is located at 3368 Eureka Place. The project site is a single lot of approximately 1.13-acres in size. The site has two existing curb cuts and two existing structures. The larger (primary) existing structure is approximately 5,273 square feet in size. That structure is currently leased to a Montessori School. (It also provides some space for overflow activities associated with the head Start program on site.) However, the lease will end in approximately June 2005. A second smaller existing structure is approximately 2,081 square feet in size. That structure was originally constructed as a house and garage. It was later converted from a residence to accommodate the Head Start program, which still utilizes the facility. The existing primary structure is proposed to be renovated. Most of the exterior and some of the interior walls and partitions will be maintained and the structure will be expanded by the addition of a 5,292- square foot second story. The total size of the renovated structure will be approximately 11,171 square feet. The resulting new Learning Center will house two of Carlsbad Library’s existing community building programs: the Bilingual Resource Center currently known as the Centro de Informacion and the Literacy Tutorial Center currently known as the Adult Learning Program. - 1 Rev. 07/03/02 The smaller existing structure, which currently houses the majority of the Head Start program activities, will be demolished. This is necessary to allow the parking lot to increase in size and to allow access to the east side (rear) of the site for installation of the modular units. A new modular structure of approximately 4,800 square feet will be placed on the east side of the project site using slab-on-grade construction. This structure will provide four classrooms for the Head Start program. This will eliminate the need for shared use of the primary structure. The Head Start program is required to maintain an outdoor play area of a minimum of 75 square feet per child. The open space proposed between the new/expanded Learning Center building and the proposed Head Start modular building will provide this required area and will be completely contained by fencing as required by the Head Start program guidelines. Site work for the proposed project will include some light grading on the east side of the site and preparation for the additional proposed parking area. The total grading volume for the project would be approximately 400 CY of cut and 100 CY of fill, resulting in 300 CY of export. 2 Rev. 07/03/02 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. 0 Aesthetics c] Geology/Soils 0 Noise Air Quality Biological Resources 0 HydrologynVater Quality 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Public Services 17 Recreation 0 Cultural Resources [7 Mineral Resources TransportatiodCircUation Utilities & Service Systems 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance 3 Rev. OlIO3lO2 DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) IXI 0 0 0 0 I find that the proposed project CO JLD JOT 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 ths case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED 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 "potentially significant impact(s)" on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 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. A 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 sigmficant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier' ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 3)3/p- Date I/ Planning Director's Signature Date 4 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, bcle 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 checkhst 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 ‘?\To 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 significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceedadopted 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 Signifkant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the’ environment, but &I potentially significant adverse 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. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Ovemding 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 adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse 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. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 An EIR must be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse 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 adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 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, whch would.otherwise be determined significant. 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings withm a State scenic highway? Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 0 0 0 0 c) 0 D 0 0 IXI 0 0 IXI 0 IXI II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are sipficant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1 997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 0 0 o b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0 0 c) Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? III. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) 0 Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 0 IXI IXI b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 0 cl 0 IXI IXI d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 0 0 0 e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 0 0 a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 0 0 b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 0 cl o IXI c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological interruption, or other means? 0 0 IXI d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 0 0 o 0 IXI IXI e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? o f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? IXI 0 0 0 g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally - sensitive? 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES -Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 o 0 b) c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 0 0 0 0 1x1 0 1x1 0 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 0 0 1x1 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as 0 delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ' 0 1x1 ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 0 0 0 0 0 Ix1 1x1 0 iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 1x1 b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1 -B of the Uniform Building Code (1 994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 0 0 0 d) 0 0 1x1 0 0 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? MI. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release 'of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 17 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ixl No Impact IXI IXI IXI IXI, El IXI IXI Ixl 0 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for whch permits have been granted)? Impacts to groundwater quality? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which wo$d result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. Increased pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen-demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g., temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? Potentially Impact Significant o 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI c7 0 0 El IXI Ix1 No Impact IXI 0 0 0 0 IXI lxl IXI 0 0 0 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact cl NO Impact 0 n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? 0 0 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? p) The exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? 0 0 17 IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? I7 0 0 IXI IXI b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 0 IXI c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) 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? 17 0 0 cl b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. NOISE - Would the project result in. 0 0 IXI a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 IXI [XI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 0 0 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). XII. Potentially Significant Impact 0 e) For a project located withm an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 0 f) POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 0 o a) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 0 c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 No Impact ISI ISI IXI ISI XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fireprotection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 0 0 0 0 0 0 [XI 0 XIV. RECREATION 0 0 OIxl a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regonal parks or other . recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 13 Rev. 07/03/02 ~ Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either indwidually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require-or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of whch could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project fiom existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact El 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact cl [XI IXI 0 0 cl 0 0 0 0 0 No Impact IXI 0 0 [XI IXI. [XI IXI ixI [XI [XI IXI IXI 14 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, whch serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE XWI. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumula- tively 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?) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? EARLIER ANALYSES Potentially Significanl Impact 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 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 ER or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identie the following on attached sheets: a) b) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects fiom the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are “Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined fiom the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 15 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS a-c) No Impact. The project site is a developed in-fill lot surrounding by urban development. The site contains no scenic buildings and no scenic vistas or resources. The proposed structures (both the renovated primary structure and the proposed new modular structure) will be within the structure height limits allowed in the zone (30 feet to the peak of the roof). The proposed project will enhance the appearance of the site from its current condition. The project will not create a new source of substantial light or glare. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a-c) No Impact. The project site is not currently and has not historically been utilized as fdand and is not designated as significant farmland. The project site is not zoned for agncultural uses and is not subject to a Williamson Act contract. The project also does not involve any other changes which would result in conversion of other farmland to non-agncultural uses. JII. AIRQUALITY a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,o). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothdl areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-. mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid-1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? Is the project consistent with the growth assumptions in the regional air quality plan? The project area is-located in the San Diego Air Basin, and as such, is located in an area where a RAQS is being implemented. The project is consistent with the growth assumptions of the City’s General Plan and the RAQS. Therefore, the project is consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict with or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates 16 Rev. 07/03/02 in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. The project would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard construction measures such as the use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with the project, they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. In addition, there are no sensitive receptors (e.g., schools or hospitals) located in the vicinity of the project. No impact is assessed. e) The construction of the proposed project could generate fumes from the operation of construction equipment, which may be considered objectionable by some people. Such exposure would be short- term or transient. In addition, the number of people exposed to such transient impacts is not considered substantial. No Impact. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a-g) No Impact. The project site is a developed in-fill site surrounded by urban development. The site contains no sensitive or protected habitat of any kind and involves no adverse effect on any such habitat and no tributary areas. The project site also does not serve as a wildlife corridor. The project would not conflict with any biological resource protection regulations or policies. The City has an adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP) which’ identifies the project site as a developed area containing no sensitive resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a-d) known historical, cultural, or paleontological resources. It also is not known to contain any human remains. No Impact. The project site is a developed in-fill site surrounded by urban development. It contains no VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a-d) No Impact. The project is located on a pre-graded parcel of land that does not contain existing or proposed slopes. The project also does not proposed to alter drainage patterns that would lead to erosion to downstream properties. New structures proposed by this project will be constructed in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code to meet all seismic requirements. e) No Impact. The project would not invoive the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems. W. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIAT.,S a-h) No Impact. The proposed project is a learning center (an extension of the City’s Library) offering various adult learning opportunities and tutoring to school-age students. The use would not involve transport, use, or disposal of reportable amounts of hazardous materials. The proposed use also would not emit hazardous emissions and would not involve releases of hazardous materials. The project site is not a listed hazardous materials site. The project site is not within an airport land use plan and would not result in a safety hazard for people. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed project would not interfere with any adopted emergency response plan. The project site is also not located near any wild lands or other open space areas; therefore the project would not expose people or structures to significant loss from fires. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY . a-g) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is an expansion of an existing use on an in fill site in an urbanized area. The project will involve the installation of a new modular structure at the rear of the property 17 Rev. 07/03/02 and the creation of new impervious surface area for the new parking area. However, the project will not deplete groundwater supplies and will not result in impacts to groundwater quality. The proposed project also will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area. The project will not alter the course of a stream or river. The project also will not substantially increase the flow rate or amount of surface runoff from the site. The proposed project has been designed andlor conditioned to comply with all applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board regulations for storm water and site runoff. The project will also be subject to all standard City requirements for erosion control during construction and requires compliance with the City Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). h-j) 100-year flood plan and does not contain any levee, dam, or other flood control devices. No Impact. The proposed project does not involve placement of housing. The project site is not within a k-1) The proposed project site is located approximately 4000-feet fiom the Pacific Ocean and is not anticipated to experience inundation. The site is also generally flat and not expected to experience mudflows or to generate erosion. Less Than Significant Impact. m) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will create additional impervious surface area (the proposed parking area). However, the parlung area runoff will discharge to biofilters to filter pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, prior to discharge to City right-of-way. n-p) Less than significant impact. This project will comply with the City Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP). Project includes non-structural best management practices (employee education, stenciling, covered trash enclosures, etc.) to avoid contact of pollutants with storm water. The project also includes structural best management practices that will filter pollutants from storm water, to the maximum extent practicable, prior to discharge to City right-of-way. IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a-c) No Impact. The proposed project involves the expansion of an existing structure in a predominantly residential neighborhood. The existing structure has been and continues to be used for community activities. The main structure was previously used by the Girls Club and is now used for the City’s Learning Center. The accessory structure on the site has been and is currently used for the Head Start program. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community. The project site is not subject to any requirements for avoiding or mitigation an environmental effect. The site is identified in the City’s adopted Habitat Management Plan (HMP) as a developed area. The proposed project is consistent with the KMP. X. MINERAL RESOURCES a-b) No Impact. The project site is not known to contain any mineral resources. XI. NOISE a-b) No Impact. The proposed use involves adult learning and your tutoring. Most of these activities are conducted indoors. The Head Start Program requires the provision of an outdoor play area. Thus, the use will involve some noise generated by children in the outdoor play area at times during the day. However, this noise would not be expected to rise to an unacceptable level. The use does not involve any equipment or activities which would generate groundborne vibration. c-d) The proposed project also would not be expected to result in any permanent increase in ambient noise levels over the current situation. The project would involve some temporary increase in noise levels as a result of grading and construction noise. However, all such activities will be conducted Less Than Significant Impact. - in compliance with the City’s regulations governing those activities. e-fS Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is no within the Airport Influence Area. Therefore, the project would not expose people to excessive noise levels. The project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING 18 Rev. 07/03/02 a-c) No Impact. The project would not induce growth. The project does not involve any new homes or businesses but would provide a service to those already living in the community. It also does not involve any extension of new roads or other services. The project also would not dsplace any existing housing or people. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES ai-a.v) Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in substantial adverse impacts on public services and will not be associated with any need for new or altered facilities or services. The proposed project is a small expansion of an existing facility whch can be adequately served by existing public services including fire and police protection, school and park facilities, and other public facilities. XIV. RECREATION a-b) No Impact. The proposed project will not result in increased usage of existing recreational facilities or in the need for new or expanded recreational opportunities. The proposed use would provide on-site the fenced play area required for the Head Start program. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate 280 Average Daily Trips (ADT) and an insignificant number of peak hour trips. While the increase in traffic from the proposed project may be slightly noticeable, the street system has been designed and sized to accommodate traffic from the project and cumulative development in the City of Carlsbad. The proposed project would not, therefore, cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Build-out average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 Existing ADT* Los Buildout ADT* 17-35 “A-D” 35-56 27-49 “A-C’ 33-62 10-57 “A-D” 30-73 124-142 “F” 156-180 199-2 16 “D” 260-272 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the build-out ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the build-out projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short- term and at build-out. c) No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. - d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Police Departments. No impact assessed. No. Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and 19 Rev. 07/03/02 f) No Impact. The proposed project is not requesting a parking variance. Additionally, the project would comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impact. The project will not conflict with any such policies, plans, or programs. a-g) No Impact. The project will not generate the need for new wastewater, storm water, or solid waste facilities. The project is designed to connect to the existing services and those existing services have adequate capacity to serve the use. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIF'ICANCE a) No Impact. b) No Impact. c) No Impact. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 - EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact ReDort for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. Rev: 07/03/02