Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-11-05; Planning Commission; Resolution 64931 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6493 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO APPROVE AN EXTENSION 4 AND AMENDMENT TO THE ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY , MASTER SITE PLAN GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH AND SOUTH OF CYPRESS AVENUE, SOUTH OF PACIFIC 6 STREET, EAST AND WEST OF OCEAN STREET, AND EAST AND WEST OF CARLSBAD BOULEVARD IN LOCAL 7 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE 8 PLAN 9 CASE NO.: CUP 94-02x 1 (A) 10 WHEREAS, Army/Navy Academy, "Developer and Owner," has filed a verified 11 application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property described as 12 That portion of Lot 47 of Granville Park and that portion of 13 Laguna Drive adjacent thereto (vacated and closed to public use by Resolution No. 918 of the City Council of the City of 14 Carlsbad, California, recorded July 19, 1963 as Instrument No. 126793 of official records of San Diego County, California) in 15 the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, lfi according to map thereof no. 1782, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County; and that portion of 17 Blocks 1 and 2 of Oceanside Addition to Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according 18 to map thereof No. 893, filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, April 8, 1903, together with the alley lying within Block 2 and that portion of Ocean Park 2Q Avenue lying between said Blocks 1 and 2 as vacated and closed to public use in order of the board of supervisors, filed in the 21 office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, October 2, 1925 in Book 751, Page 332 of Deeds; and, Lots 75, 76 and Lots 22 94 through 96 inclusive of Granville Park No. 2, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to map thereof No. 2037, filed in the office of the County 24 Recorder of San Diego County, June 18,1927 25 ("the Property"); and 26 WHEREAS, a Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said 27 project; and 28 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on November 5, 2008, 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 2 and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 3 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors4 <- relating to the Negative Declaration. 6 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 7 Commission as follows: o A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 9 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning 10 Commission hereby ADOPTS the Negative Declaration, Exhibit "ND," according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: X £* 13 Findings; 14 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Negative Declaration for the Army/Navy Academy Master Site Plan, the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the 17 project; and 18 b. 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 20 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of 21 Carlsbad; and 22 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. 24 25 26 27 28 PC RESO NO. 6493 -2- 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 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on November 5, 2008, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioners Baker, Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez, and Montgomery NOES: Chairperson Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Douglas ABSTAIN: FRANK H. WHITTON, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Un XW DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6493 -3- FILECOPY City of Carlsbad" Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJECT LOCATION: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION Army and Navy Academy RP 05-04/CDP 05-1 I/CUP 94-02X1A North of Cypress Avenue, south of Pacific Street, east of the Pacific Ocean, and west of the North County Transit District railroad right-of-way in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Adoption of a conceptual Master Site Plan for the Army and Navy Academy that will guide the future renovation of the campus facilities. 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Design Review Board and Planning Commission. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 and Housing and Redevelopment Department 2965 Roosevelt Street, Suite B, 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 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 Christer Westman in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4614. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD July 31. 2008 - August 20. 2008 PUBLISH DATE July 31.2008 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN CASE NO: RP 05-04/CUP 94-02x1 (A) PROJECT LOCATION: Generally located north and south of Cypress Avenue. South of Pacific Street, east and west of Ocean Street, and east and west of Carlsbad Boulevard in Local Facilities Management Zone 1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An update to the Army/Navy Academy Master Site Plan to be used as a guide for future development. 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 (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: IXI The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. I I 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). I I 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 (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: November 5, 2008. pursuant to Design Review Board Resolution No. 334 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 6493 ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: RP 05-04/CDP 05-1 I/CUP 94-02X1A DATE: July 10. 2008 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Army and Navy Academy Master Site Plan 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad Redevelopment Department. 2965 Roosevelt Street. Suite B. Carlsbad. CA 92008 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Austin Silva. (760) 434-2813 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 2605 Carlsbad Boulevard 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: General Steve Bliss. 2605 Carlsbad Blvd.. Carlsbad. CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: V (Village). RHM (Residential Medium-High Density). P (Private School), and OS (Open Space) 7. ZONING: VR (Village Redevelopment). R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). BAQZ (Beach Area Overlay Zone) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project consists of a conceptual Master Site Plan for the Army and Navy Academy that would guide the future renovation of the campus facilities. No development is proposed at this time with the Master Site Plan. The proposed Master Site Plan has 3 main objectives: to provide academic buildings, dormitories and -support facilities that enhance the education and experience of the cadets; increase the boarding student enrollment form 340 to 440 students; and provide residential facilities to accommodate the onsite housing needs of 10 additional faculty and support staff. Another component of the campus build out will be improvements to streets, sewer, overhead utilities and other public improvements that are deemed necessary when future discretionary permits are applied for. The Army and Navy Academy Master Site Plan covers 15.89 acres and is located north of Carlsbad Village Drive and south of Buena Vista Lagoon with Carlsbad Boulevard passing through the property, which is located within the northwest quadrant of the City of Carlsbad. The site is bounded on the north by Pacific Avenue, on the east by the San Diego Northern (SDN) Railroad, on the south generally by Cypress Avenue (though portions of the site are situated south of and adjacent to Cypress Avenue) and on the west by the Pacific Ocean. The immediate surrounding land uses are single-family and low density multi-family to the north and south, light commercial to the east and south along Carlsbad Boulevard, and the ocean to the west. Elevations on site range from sea level to approximately 54 feet above sea level. The western portion of the site is comprised of a coastal bluff, with an elevation differential of approximately 30 feet between the ocean and the top of the bluff. From Ocean Street to the highest elevation on the site, the elevation differential is approximately 15 feet. The Army and Navy Academy Master Site Plan covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of existing land uses and facilities on an existing and highly disturbed infill site. 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. No native habitat exists on the site. Rev. 01/02/07 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. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality J Biological Resources Cultural Resources | I Geology/Soils Noise I Hazards/Hazardous Materials LJ Population and Housing Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use and Planning Mineral Resources J Mandatory Findings of Significance Public Services Recreation Transportation/Circulation Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 01/02/07 DETERMINATION. [XJ 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 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 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. 7 Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 01/02/07 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) 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 significantly adverse, 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 significantly adverse. • Based on an "EIA-Initial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all 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 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 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. Rev. 01/02/07 • 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-Initial Study 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 after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 01/02/07 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 within a State scenic highway? c) 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? . Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact n I. AESTHETICS a) No Impact: There are no scenic vistas from the project site other than from the buildings along the coastal bluffs nor are there any through the project site. Reducing the height of one of the bluff edge buildings may have a minimal beneficial effect on views to the west. b) No Impact: The proposed project will not substantially degrade scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway because none of these occur on the proposed project site. c) No Impact: Future development consistent with the proposed project will enhance the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings since the project is proposing to renovate campus facilities in the future consistent with the Development Guidelines for District 9 in the Redevelopment Area. d) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project proposes several future surface level parking lots and areas of the campus which may be lit during the nighttime hours. However, the lighting of these areas will have a less than significant impact on day or nighttime views because as a standard on-site condition for any future construction, lighting will be required to reflect downward to avoid any impacts on adjacent homes or property. II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n Rev. 01/02/07 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: The proposed project will not 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. b) No Impact: The proposed project area does not include lands under a Williamson Act contract or property that is zoned for agricultural use. c) No Impact: The proposed project will not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use. There is no mapped farmland on the site. 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) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact Rev. 01/02/07 III. AIR QUALITY a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non-attainment area for ozone (63) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill 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 9* 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 and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that were 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 Environmental 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: • 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 assumption 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 or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004, indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. 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 infrequent travel to and from the project to drop off and pick up students at semester breaks 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 state 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 Rev. 01/02/07 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 school project, which is considered a sensitive receptor, will not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. Therefore no impact is assessed. e) No Impact. 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. Therefore, no impact is assessed. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: 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? 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? 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? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 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? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modification, 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 El El 10 Rev. 01/02/07 because none of these species occur within the proposed project area. The project area has been previously graded, is fully developed with urban uses, and is devoid of any types of native habitat. b) No Impact: The proposed project will not 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 because none of these natural communities occur within the development area of the project site. c) No Impact: No wetlands exist within the project area. No federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act will be impacted. d) No Impact: The project area does not include any natural habitat. The proposed project does not encroach into habitat corridors and will therefore not impact the movement of native or migratory wildlife species. e) No Impact: The project area is fully developed. The proposed project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. There is no natural habitat onsite and the project is not subject to protection and/or preservation measures identified in the applicable City policies and ordinances. f) No Impact: The site is located within a Habitat Conservation Plan (City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan), however, the proposed project will not conflict with the provisions of the adopted Habitat Conservation Plan or any other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan since there are no significant natural resources found within the project boundaries. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: There are no locally or State listed historical resources on site. The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5. b) No Impact: There are no locally or State listed archeological resources on site. The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource as defined in §15064.5. c) No Impact: The site is not mapped as a local or statewide area of historical significance. There is no indication that the site contains significant paleontological resources. The proposed project does not require substantial earth movement and will therefore not, directly or indirectly, destroy a potentially unique paleontological resource on site or unique geological feature. 11 Rev. 01/02/07 d) No Impact: There are no known human remains onsite including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. The project requires only shallow earth excavations and does not require substantial amounts of grading. The potential of the project disturbing human remains is very low and therefore qualifies as a No Impact determination. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact X 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 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. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? 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? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? 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? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a.i-iii.) No Impact: The subject site is not located within any Earthquake Fault Zones as created by the Alquist- Priolo Act, nor are there any known major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface rupture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may affect the site is ground shaking from one of the active regional faults, with the nearest known active fault being the Rose Canyon Fault Zone located 6.9 miles west of the site. Since the site is made up of marina loamy coarse sand, the risk of seismic-related ground failure or liquefaction is very minimal. Kl IEI 12 Rev. 01/02/07 a.iv.) No Impact: The topography of the site is considered relatively flat with the exception of the coastal bluffs. There is no evidence of slope erosion or landslides along the project's bluffs. b) No Impact: The topography of the site is considered relatively flat. Construction will have to comply with the standards set forth in the City's Excavation and Grading Ordinance thereby preventing erosion through slope planting and installation of temporary erosion control. c) No Impact: The proposed project is not located on a 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. Any future development project shall be subject to the soils mitigation measures identified in a project specific geotechnical investigation. d) No Impact: Because the project is not be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1997) it will not create substantial risk to life or property. e) No Impact: The project does not propose septic tanks and will use sewers. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks. VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) 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? e) 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? f) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D El El 13 Rev. 01/02/07 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) No Impact: The proposed project does not include the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project will consist of redevelopment and renovation of existing land uses and facilities that will not transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials. b) No Impact: The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or environment relating to the release of hazardous materials into the environment because the project will consist of redevelopment and renovation of existing land uses and facilities that would not employ such materials. c) No Impact: The proposed project is located on an existing private school site and will not emit hazardous materials, substances or waste because it will not have such items on site. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving the emission or handling of hazardous materials on the school site. d) No Impact: The site is not located on a site that is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. e) No Impact: The project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because the project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of one. f) No Impact: Because the proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. g) No Impact: No possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is anticipated with this site. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan. h) No Impact: The proposed project is located in an already urbanized area and therefore there is no significant risk to people or structures with wildland fires, wildland adjacent to urbanized areas, or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 14 Rev. 01/02/07 b) 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 which permits have been granted)? c) 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 would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? d) 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? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) 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? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) 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? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 1) Increase 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 Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D x D 15 Rev. 01/02/07 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporatedn Less Than Significant Impact No Impact El m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? o) Increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff? p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY a) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject property is required by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, California Administrative Code Title 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin." (WQCP) The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit which includes the requirement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project must also obtain a NPDES permit prior to construction. The permit will require the project to develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality. These plans will ensure acceptable water quality standards will be maintained both during the construction phase as well as post-development. b) No Impact: There will not be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table because the proposed project does not propose to use or disturb groundwater supplies. c) No Impact: There will not be substantial erosion or siltation on or off-site because the drainage pattern of the site will not be substantially altered and the project will comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which requires the project to develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality. d) No Impact: There will not be an increase in the flow rate or amount of surface runoff that would result in flooding on or off-site because the drainage pattern will not be substantially altered and the project will comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which requires the project to develop and implement specific storm water control practices to minimize the flow rate and volume of surface runoff. e) No Impact: Because the proposed project is not creating or contributing to runoff water, the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems will not be exceeded and the project will comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs) which requires the project to develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality, and control practices to minimize the flow rate and volume of surface runoff. f) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project will not substantially degrade water quality because it is not located next to any sources of water and is already connected to existing sewer lines. In addition, project development will be conditioned to comply with all Federal, State, and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act and associated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations which 16 Rev. 01/02/07 requires the project to develop and implement specific erosion control and storm water pollution prevention plans to protect downstream water quality. g) No Impact: The proposed Master Site Plan does not place future 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. h) No Impact: The proposed project will not impede or redirect flood flows because structures will not be placed within a 100-year flood hazard area. i) No Impact: Because the project is not located downstream from a dam or levee, the proposed project will not expose people or structures to significant water related hazards such as flooding. j) No Impact: The project site is not located in an area with a known history of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. k) Less Than Significant Impact: The construction phase of the project could result in increased erosion. However, as a result of the NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project, no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result from the project. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected during and immediately following the grading and construction phases of the project when cleared and graded areas are exposed to rain and storm water runoff. Standard conditions require compliance with NPDES sediment control requirements during the construction phase and implementation of the post construction BMPs for the project. 1) No Impact: The project shall be designed to remove pollutants of concern through storm water conveyance systems to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) through the incorporation of treatment control BMPs. In order to remove primary and secondary pollutants of concern, the project will employ a combination of vegetated swales and hydrodynamic separators. Subject to compliance with the proposed BMPs, the project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. Post construction BMPs will further ensure that the project does not change the receiving water quality following construction activities. m) No Impact: The project shall be designed to remove pollutants of concern through storm water conveyance systems to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) through the incorporation of treatment control BMPs. In order to remove primary and secondary pollutants of concern, the project will employ a combination of vegetated swales and hydrodynamic separators. Subject to compliance with the proposed BMPs, the project will not result in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation of the proposed project. Post construction BMPs will further ensure that the project does not change the receiving water quality following construction activities. n) No Impact: The project is subject to the creation of a Storm Water Management Plan and implements best management practices for the treatment of storm water runoff and will therefore not increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. o) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes the construction of several surface level parking lots as well as sidewalks within the project area and will therefore increase impervious surfaces and associated runoff. However, the project is subject to the creation of a Storm Water Management Plan and implements best management practices for the treatment of storm water runoff and will therefore not result in significant adverse runoff. p) No Impact: The project is subject to the creation of a Storm Water Management Plan and implements best management practices for the treatment of storm water runoff. The implementation of the SWMP will ensure that there is no impact to aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat. q) No Impact: The project is subject to the creation of a Storm Water Management Plan and implements best management practices for the treatment of storm water runoff which will ensure that it will not result in the excedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial use. 17 Rev. 01/02/07 IX. LANDUSE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 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? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact n X IX. LAND USE PLANNING a) No Impact: The proposed project will not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community because the private school has been located on the site since 1937 and is conformance with zoning requirements. The Master Site Plan encompasses only the existing area of the Army and Navy Academy. b) No Impact: The project does not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations because 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. Since the school has been located on the site since 1937 and is conformance with zoning requirements, it does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. c) No Impact: Because 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, fully developed infill site, it will not conflict with any applicable habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans. The project does not constitute the addition of major new land uses, development proposals, or a significant increase in the capacity of the school. 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? 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 18 Rev. 01/02/07 X. MINERAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources on the site. The project will not 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. b) No Impact: There are no known mineral resources on the site. The project will not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on any land use plan. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact X XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 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? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within 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? f) 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? XI. NOISE a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within close proximity to the San Diego Northern Railroad which exposes the project to higher noise levels. However, development of the site requires compliance with the General Plan Noise Guidelines Manual which requires exterior noise levels to be attenuated to 65 dB(A) CNEL or less and interior noise to be attenuated to a level of 45 dB(A) CNEL or less through construction methods. Any future construction associated with the Master Site Plan will require a noise study to determine the extent of the required noise attenuation. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within close proximity to the San Diego Northern Railroad which exposes the project to groundbourne vibration. However the groundbourne vibration is ongoing and is not excessive. c) No Impact: Because the property will remain as a school use, there will not be a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 19 Rev. 01/02/07 d) Less Than Significant Impact: Any future construction associated with the Master Plans could result in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. Those levels will not be at a significant level and will not be permanent. e) No Impact: The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan therefore, the persons visiting and working at the site will not be exposed to excessive noise levels. f)No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: 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? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) No Impact: Because the proposed project is in conformance with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan, and does not require the extension of major public facilities, the proposed project will not induce substantial growth in the area either directly or indirectly. b) No Impact: There will not be a need to construct replacement housing because the project is not proposing to displace any housing available to the public at large. c) No Impact: There will not be a need to construct replacement housing because the project is not proposing to displace any people. 20 Rev. 01/02/07 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D x E XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES 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) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a.i-v.) No Impact: The project is in conformance with the City's zoning, General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, the project will not affect the provision and or availability of public services (i.e., fire protection, police protection, schools, parks, etc.). The project shall be subject to the conditions, and the facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone 1. Therefore no significant public service impacts will occur. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) 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? XIV. RECREATION a) No Impact: All of the recreational needs created by the project are provided onsite. There will not be an increase in the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that a substantial physical deterioration would occur or be accelerated. . 21 Rev. 01/02/07 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated El El b) No Impact: The project site is fully developed. Redevelopment of the property with athletic/recreational facilities for use by the school will not have an adverse physical effect on the environment. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) 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)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) 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? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) No Impact: The buildout projection of the project includes the addition of approximately 100 students and 10 faculty. Most of the students will not have access to a vehicle and will not therefore contribute significant ADT to the surrounding street system. The ADT associated with 10 additional staff is insignificant. The project involves the future redevelopment of an existing boarding school where students and faculty will be living on the campus. b) No 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 Buildout 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 SR78 1-5 Existing ADT* 17-35 27-49 10-57 124-142 199-216 LOS "A-D" "A-C" "A-D" "p" "D" Buildout ADT* 35-56 33-62 30-73 156-180 260-272 * The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. 22 Rev. 01/02/07 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 buildout 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 buildout 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 buildout. c) No Impact: The proposed Master Site Plan will not impact air traffic patterns because no buildings are proposed that are tall enough to impact air traffic patterns nor is the project located within close proximity to any airstrips. 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) No Impact: The project shall be designed to satisfy all emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments f) Less Than Significant Impact: The project will comply with all City parking requirements to ensure an adequate supply of parking. g) No Impact: The proposed Master Site Plan includes the improvement of streets within the plan area which include sidewalks and bike lanes. The project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. Less Than Significant No Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) 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? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? 23 Rev. 01/02/07 Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which 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? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a-g) No Impact. The proposed project will be required to comply with all Regional Water Quality Control Board Requirements. In addition, the Zone 1 LFMP anticipated that the project site would be developed with school and related uses and therefore wastewater treatment facilities were planned and designed to accommodate this future use. All public facilities, including water facilities, wastewater treatment facilities and drainage facilities, have been planned and designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The project does not result in development that will require expansion or construction of new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage facilities. IXI XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop 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? ("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?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 24 Rev. 01/02/07 XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No Impact: The proposed project is in conformance with the zoning and land use designation for the site and does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. The project site is considered a developed site, which does not contain any fish or wildlife species; is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal species; and does not contain any known historical, archeological, or paleontological resources. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species; will not threaten to eliminate or reduce the number of endangered plant and animal species; and will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California history or prehistory. b) No Impact: The proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, or cumulatively considerable because it involves the renovation and expansion of an existing school campus. There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. Air quality would essentially be the same whether or not the development of the Army and Navy Academy occurs as a result of the Master Plan. Regarding traffic, the project is consistent with the City's growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impacts from the project to the circulation system are less than significant. c) No Impact: The proposed project does not create impacts involving environmental effects on human beings because future development of the site will comply with all City standards. 25 Rev. 01/02/07