Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 05-04; Army & Navy Academy Master Plan; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (4)Notice of Determination To: n Office of Planning and Research P.O. Box 3044 Sacramento, CA 95812-3044 SD County Clerk Attn: Anthony J. Consul Mail Stop A-33 1600 Pacific Highway SanDiego, CA 92101 From: CITYOFCARLSBAD Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue . 1^ D IL (1 © Carlsbad, CA 92008 David Butler, Acting Recorder/County Cleik (760) 602-4600 FEB 02 BY DEPUTY Project No: CUP 94-02xl(A) Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 21108 or 21152 of the Public Resources Code. Army/Navy Academy Master Site Plan Project Title N/A City of Carlsbad, Austin Silva (760) 438-2813 State Clearinghouse No. Lead Agency, Contact Person Telephone Number Pacific Avenue to the north, the San Diego Northem Railroad to the east, Cvpress Avenue ^portions of the site are situated south of and adiacent to Cvpress Avenue) to the sgu^yaiid the Pacific Ocean to the west. City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego ,<^a^^y Project Locations (include County) Name of Applicant: Army and Navy Academy Applicant's Address: PO Box 3000 Carlsbad CA 92008 Applicant's Telephone Number: (Hofman Planning) 760-692-4014 Project Description: An update to the Army/Navy Academy Master Site guide for future development on the property. This is to advice that the City of Carlsbad has approved the above described project 2009, and has made the following determination regarding the above described project uary 6, 1. The project will not have a significant effect on the environment 2. Q An Environmental Impact report was prepared .for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. I I This project was reviewed previously and a Negative Declaration was prepared pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3. Mitigation measures were not made a condition of the approval of the project. 4. A mitigation reporting or monitoring plan was not adopted for this project. 5. A statement of Overriding Considerations was not adopted for this project. 6. Findings were made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final Negative Declaration with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at THE CITY OF CARLSBAD. project approval is DON NEU, Planning Director Date received for filing at OPR: Date Revised December 2004 ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY Inspiring Excellence Since 1910 Post Office Box 3000 Carlsbad, CA 92018-3000 PAY TOTHE ORDER OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY CLERK *TWO THOUSAND FORTY-THREE AND XX / 100 CITY NATIONAL ^2.^ RAKI^ Cl 2011 Palomar Airpon Road, Suita 100 DMn IS. 1^ Cardbad, CalHornia »2011 16-1606-1220 $ 19372 019372 01/27/2009 2,043.00 g DOLLARS SAN DIEGO COUNTY CLERK MEMO AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE ii"Gl^3 7En" 1: I E EG IE E0"'0 UUG En" ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY 19372 DATE INVOICE NO 01/27/2009 01262009 COMMENT Replace ck#18784 fr Mastr Plan AMOUNT DISCOUNT NET AMOUNT 2,043.00 0.00 2,043.00 CHECK: 019372 01/27/2009 SAN DIEGO COUNTY CLERK CHECK TOTAL: 2,043.00 Citv of Carlsbad Planning Department NEGATIVE DECLARATION ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN RP 05-04/CUP 94-02xUA) CASE NAME: CASE NO: PROJHECT LOCATION: Generallv located north and south of Cvpress 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 Armv/Naw Academv Master Site Plan to be used as a guide for fiiture development. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the Califomia Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance ofthe 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: 3 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, Califomia 92008. ADOPTED: November 5, 2008, pursuant to Design Review Board Resolution No. 334 and Planning Commission Resolution No. 6493 ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us state of California—The Resources Agency ^ DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME 2009 ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON REVERSE. TYPE OR PRINT CLEARLY RECEIPT# SD2009 000122 STATE CLEARING HOUSE # (ifapplicable) LEADAGENCY CITY OF CARLSBAD DATE 02-03-2009 COUNTY/STATEAGENCY OF FILING SAN DIEGO DOCUMENTNUMBER 090034 PROJECTTITLE ARMY/NAVY ACADEMY MASTER SITE PLAN PROJECTAPPLICANT NAME ARMY AND NAVY ACADEMY PHONENUMBER 760-692-4014 PROJECTAPPLICANTADDRESS PO BOX 3000 CITY CARLSBAD STATE CA ZIPCODE 92008 PROJECT APPLICANT (Check appropriate box): Q Local Public Agency • School District • Other Special District • State Agency Q Private Entity CHECK APPLICABLE FEES: Q Environmental Impact Report $2,768.25 $ • Negative Declaration $1,993.00 $ $1,993.00 • Application Fee Water Diversion CSfafe Wafer Resources Control Board Only) Q Projects Subject to Certified Regulatory Programs • County Aciministrative Fee • Project that is exempt from fees Q Notice of Exemption Q DFG No Effect Determination (Form Attached) • Other PAYMENT METHOD: • Cash • Credit • Check • Other 19372 $850.00 $ $941.25 $ $50.00 $ $50.00 TOTALRECEIVED $ $2,043.00 SIGNATURE X L. Kesian ^j^^^^^ TITLE Deputy iiiiini ORIGINAL - PROJECT APPLICANT COPY - DFG/ASB COPY-LEAD AGENCY COPY - COUNTY CLERK FG 753.6a(Rev. 7/08) David L. Butler COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ASSESSOR/RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK ASSESSOR'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 103 SanDiego, CA92101-2480 Tel. (619) 236-3771 * Fax (619) 557-4056 www.sdarcc.com RECORDER/COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE 1600 Pacific Highway, Room 260 P.O. Box 121750 * San Diego, CA 92112-1750 Tel. (619)237-0502 * Fax (619)557-4155 Transaction #: 195755420090203 Deputy: LKESIAN Location: COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 03-Feb-2009 15:14 FEES: 1,993.00 Qtyofl Fish & Game Neg Dec (1800) 50.00 Qty of 1 Fee Notice of Exemption 2,043.00 TOTAL DUE PAYMENTS: 2,043.00 Check 2,043.00 TENDERED Valentines Day is Saturday, February 14, 2009 and our Kearny Mesa Office wiil liave extended Iiours from Sam to Spm. Call 858-505-6197 today to schedule an appointment. SERVICES AVAILABLE AT OFFICE LOCATIONS Tax Bill Address Changes Records and Certified Copies: Birth/ Marriage/ Death/ Real Estate Fictitious Business Names (DBAs) Marriage Licenses and Ceremonies Assessor Parcel Maps Property Ownership Property Records Property Values Document Recordings SERVICES AVAILABLE ON-LINE AT www.sdarcccom Forms and Applications Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) Grantor/ Grantee Index Fictitious Business Names Index (DBAs) Property Sales On-Line Purchases Assessor Parcel Maps Property Characteristics Recorded Documents CHULA VISTA 590 Third Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910-2646 (619) 498-2277 BRANCH OFFICES AVAILABLE TO SERVE YOU Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Saturdays at the Keamy Mesa OfFice 9:00 a.m. - 3:00 p.m. EL CAJON 200 South Magnolia Ave. El Cajon, CA 92020-3316 (619) 401-5750 KEARNY MESA 9225 Clairemont Mesa Blvd. SanDiego, CA92123-1211 (858)505-6226 SAN MARCOS 141 E Carmel Street San Marcos, CA 92078-4309 (760) 940-6858 FNVmONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY CASE NO: RP 05-04/CDP 05-11/CUP 94-02X1A DATE: July 10.2008 BACKGROUND 1 CASE NAME: Army and Naw Academv Master Site Plan 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: Citv ofCarlsbad 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 rVillage). RHM (Residential Medium-High Densitv). P (Private School), and OS (Open Space) 7. ZONING: VR (Village Redevelopment). R-3 (Multi-Family Residential). BAOZ (Beach Area Overlav Zone) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, fmancing approval or participation agreements): 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 ofthe campus build out will be improvements to streets, sewer, overhead utilities and other public improvements that are deemed necessary when future discretionary permits are appHed 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 Northem (SDN) Railroad, on the south generally by Cypress Avenue (though portions ofthe 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 Carisbad Boulevard, and the ocean to the west. Elevations on site range from sea level to approximately 54 feet above sea level. The westem nortion ofthe site is comprised ofa coastal bluff, with an elevation differential of approximately 30 feet between the ocean and the top ofthe 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 omamental 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 fu^t buildings on site were constructed in the 1920's. No native habitat exists ori the site. Rev. 01/02/07 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: nf environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project The !^;7°;act that is a "Potentially Significant ImpacC or "Potenfally Signtficant Impact involving at least one . «u^«nw r.« the fnllowing pages. unless Mitigation Wo-ted" as indicated by the checklist on the followtng pages. [~~] Aesthetics Agricultural Resources QAir Quality Q Biological Resources Q Cultural Resources • Geology/Soils • Noise • Hazards/Hazardous Materials • ^-V-'^^^ • Hydrology/Water Quality • Public Services • Land Use and Planning • Recreation I I Mineral Resources Q Transportation/Circulation I I Mandatory Findings of [~j utilities & Service Systems Significance Rev. 01/02/07 DETERMINATION. • • • 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 I) 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 puisuant 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. W«mCTSi^amre Planning Director's Signature Date Date Rev. 01/02/07 KNVIRONM^^^JT^AT. TTVIPACTS 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 enviromnent 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 followmg each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced infonnation 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 fi-om "Potentially Significant Impacf 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 eflfect on the environment hut aH potentially si^ificant 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 ofthe 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 mitigs^on measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the ajj/propnatc "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. Rev. 01/02/07 , ,.'Pote„«y Significant In^pac.- is c^^e.^^^ « ^ "SL^^^or An EIR ^ P'^P^^'^3. n T p°tentially significant f^^^ „ot agree to mitig«.on Z following fXX—to Applicable standa^ "{^^^ S a leveT^significance. ^ of questions ,potentialin-pacts»dtHepro^.a.|tg^^ A discussion of po^«^^^^^ P given to d.scussmg mmgation Particular attention Rev. 01/02/07 I. • Potentially Significant . Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? • • • X b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but • • • X b) not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic • • • X buildings within a State scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or • • • X c) quality ofthe site and its surroundings? • • • X d) Create a new source of substantial light and glare, • • X • d) which would adversely affect day or nighttime views • • X • in the area? I, AESTHETICS a) No Impact: There are no scenic vistas fi-om the project site other than fi-om the buildings along the coastal bluffs nor are there any through the project site. Reducing the height of one ofthe bluff edge buildings may have a minimal beneficial eflfect 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. No Impact: Future development consistent with the proposed project will enhance the existing visual character and quality ofthe 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 ofthe 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. Potentially II. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determinmg whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the Califomia Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the Califomia Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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 Califomia Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? • • • IEI Rev. 01/02/07 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existmg environment, which due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? • Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • X II. A^PTPTTT TTTRAL RESOURCES 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 ofthe Califomia 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 obstmct applicable air quality plan? implementation of the b) c) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 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 Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • • IEI IEI • • • Kl • • • • • S Rev. 01/02/07 in. 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 (O ) and for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PMio). 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 Govemments (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 fi-om all other Califomia non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the Califomia State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9* through 10* 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 nresumably 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) ofthe State of Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contams 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 ofthe RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The Califomia 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 obstmct implementation ofthe 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 fi-om 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 oeriod) No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. The oroiect would involve minimal short-term emissions associated with grading and construction. Such emissions would be minimized through standard constmction measures such as die use of properly tuned equipment and watering the site for dust control. Long-term emissions associated with infi-equent travel to and fi-om 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 uspended fine particulates. The proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable notential 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 roject 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(aX4), 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 constmction of the proposed project could generate fiimes fi-om the operation of constmction eauioment 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. 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse eflfect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) d) 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, vemal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filing, hydrological intermption, or other means? 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • • • • • • • • • Kl • • Kl • • Kl Kl Kl IV. niHT OfiTCAL 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 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 Califomia Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service because none of these natural communities occur within the development area ofthe project site. c) No Impact: No wetlands exist within the project area. Section 404 ofthe Clean Water Act will be impacted. No federally protected wetlands as defined by 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 die 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 signiflcant natural resources found within the project boundaries. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project; a) b) c) 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 pale ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? V. n TT TI JRAL RESQUSCES 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 paieontological resources. The proposed project does not require substantial earth movement and will therefore not direcfly or indirectly, destroy a potentially unique paieontological resource on site or unique geological feamre. 11 Rev. 01/02/07 d) No Impact: There are no known human remains onsite including those inteired 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS - Would the project: a) Expose people or stmctures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or deafli 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 resuh in on- or oflf-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - l-B ofthe Uniform Building Code (1997), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or altemative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? VI. GF'^T '^^-v 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 knovm major or active faults on or in the immediate vicinity ofthe site. Because of the lack of known active faults on the site, the potential for surface mpture at the site is considered low. The main seismic hazard that may aflfect the site is ground shaking fi-om 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 groimd failure or liquefaction is very minimal. • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X • • • X 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. Constraction 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 ofthe project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefiiction, 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 Unifonn 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, tiiere will be no impacts involving soils that support the use of septic tanks. Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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 involvmg 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 Govemment 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? • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • Kl 13 Rev. 01/02/07 r o g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or stractures 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 • LessTTian Significant Impact • No Impact • • • S VII. MA7ARnS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS a) No Impact: The proposed project does not include the transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. TTie 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, tiiere will be no impacts involving the emission or handling of hazardous materials on tiie school site. d) No Impact: The site is not located on a site tiiat is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Govemment Code Section 65962.5. e) No Impact: The project will not resuh in a safety hazard for people residing or working in tiie 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 witiiin the vicinity of a private airship, the project will not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in tiie project area. g) No Impact: No possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan is anticipated witii this site. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan. h) No Impact: The proposed project is located in an akeady urbanized area and therefore there is no significant risk to people or stractures with wildland fires, wildland adjacent to urbanized areas, or where residences are intermixed witii 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 • • K • 14 Rev. 01/02/07 b) c) d) e) 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)? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course ofa stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off- site? Substantially alter the existing drainage pattem 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 resuh in floodmg on- or off- site? Create or contribute ranoff 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 stractures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or stractures 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) intp 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • S • • • X • • • X • • • X • • Kl • • • • Kl • • • X • • • X • • • Kl • • Kl • • • • X 15 Rev. 01/02/07 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • Kl • • • X • • Kl • • • • Kl • • • X m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fi-esh or wetland waters) during or following constraction? 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, wetiand, 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 OUALITY a) Less Than Significant Impact: The subject property is requked by law to comply with all federal, state and local water quality regulations, including the Clean Water Act, Califomia Administrative Code Titie 23, and specific basin plan objectives identified in the "Water Quality Control Plan for San Diego Basin." (V/QCP) The WQCP contains specific objectives for the Carlsbad Hydrologic Unit which includes the requu-ement to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and the use of Best Management Practices (BMPs). The project must also obtam a NPDES permit prior to constraction. 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 constraction phase as well as post-development b) No Impact: There will not be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering ofthe 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 oflf-site because the drainage pattem 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 requkes 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 ranoff that would resuh in flooding on or off-site because the drainage pattem 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 ranoff e) No Impact: Because the proposed project is not creating or contributing to ranoff 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 mmimize the flow rate and volume of surface nmoflf. 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 stractures will not be placed witiiin a 100-year flood hazard area. i) No Impact: Because the project is not located downstream fi-om 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 constraction phase ofthe project could result in increased erosion. However as a result ofthe NPDES permit requirements associated with the proposed project no significant increase in erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters will result fi-om the project. The greatest potential for short-term water quality impacts to the drainage basin would be expected durmg and immediately followmg tiie gradmg and constraction 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 constraction phase and implementation ofthe post constiuction BMPs for tiie project. \) No Impact: The project shall be designed to remove pollutants of concem through storm water conveyance svstems to the maximum extent practicable (MEP) through the incorporation of treatment control BMPs. In order to remove primary and secondary pollutants of concem, the project will employ a combination of vegetated swales and hydrodynamic separators. Subject to compliance with the proposed BMPs, the project will not resuh in the increase of pollutants into downstream waters, and no receiving water quality will be adversely affected through implementation ofthe proposed project. Post constraction BMPs will further ensure that the project does not change tiie receiving water quality following constraction 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 mcorporation of ti-eatment control BMPs. In order to remove primary and secondary pollutants of concem, the project will employ a combination of vegetated swales and hydrodynamic separators. Subject to compliance with the proposed BMPs, the project will not resuh in the mcrease of pollutants into downstream waters, and no receiving water quality will be adversely aflfected through implementation ofthe proposed project. Post constraction BMPs will further ensure that the project does not change tiie receiving water quality following constraction 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 ranoff and will therefore not increase any pollutant to an ah-eady impaked water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list. o) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project includes the constraction of several surface level narking lots as well as sidewalks within the project area and will therefore increase impervious surfaces and associated runoflf. 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 ranoff and will therefore not result in significant adverse ranoff 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 ranoff The implementation ofthe SWMP will ensure that there is no impact to aquatic, wetiand, or riparian habitat. a) No Impact: The project is subject to the creation of a Storm Water Management Plan and implements best management practices for die 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 tiie project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency witii 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 envkonmental eflfect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X IX. T AND USEPT .A>JNING a) No Impact: The proposed project will not disrapt the physical arrangement of an established community because the private school has been located on the site since 1937 and is conformance with zoning requkements. 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 ui residential areas within the City with the approval of a Condhional Use Permit Since the school has been located on the site since 1937 and is conformance with zoning requkements, it does not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for tiie purpose of avoiding or mitigating an envkonmental 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 existmg, 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 tiie project: a) Resuh in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and die residents of tiie 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • X 18 Rev. 01/02/07 j^AnjVM AT RESOURCES a) b) 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. No Impact: There are no known mineral resources on the site. The project will not result in the loss of availability ofa locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on any land use plan. XI. NOISE - Would the project resuh in: a) b) c) d) e) f) 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? Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels? A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing witiiout tiie project? 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? For a project within the vicinity of a private akstiip, would the project expose people residmg or working m the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • X • • • X • • • • X • • X • • • • X • • • X XI. NOISE a) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within close proximity to the San Diego Northera Raikoad which exposes the project to higher noise levels. However, development of the site requkes compliance with the General Plan Noise Guidelines Manual which requkes 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 constraction methods. Any future constraction associated with the Master Site Plan will requke a noise smdy to determine the extent of the requked noise attenuation. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The proposed project is within close proximity to the San Diego Northem Raikoad which exposes the project to groundboume vibration. However the groundboume vibration is ongoing and is not excessive. c) No Impact: Because the property will remam as a school use, there will not be a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels. 19 Rev. 01/02/07 6 d) Less Than Significant Impact: Any future constraction associated with tiie Master Plans could resuh in a temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicmity 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 withm the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the project: a) Induce substantial growtii in an area eitiier dkectiy (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indkectiy (for example, through extension of roads or other infi-astracture)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housmg, necessitating the constraction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the constraction of replacement housing elsewhere? XII. pnPT n ATION AHD-HOUSING a) b) c) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • • • X • • • X • • • X No Impact: Because the proposed project is m conformance with the General Plan and the Village Redevelopment Plan, and does not requke the extension of major public facilities, the proposed project will not induce substantial grovrth m the area either dkectiy or indkectiy. No Impact: There will not be a need to constract replacement housing because the project is not proposmg to displace any housing available to tiie public at large. No Impact: There will not be a need to constract replacement housmg because tiie project is not proposing to displace any people. 20 Rev. 01/02/07 XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the project resuh in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered govemment facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the constraction of which could cause significant envkonmental impacts, in order to maintam acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact i) Fke protection? • • • X ii) Police protection? • • • X iii) Schools? • • • X iv) Parks? • • • X v) Other public facilities? • • • X XIII. prmT ir .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 tiie facility service level requirements within the Local Facilities Management Plan for Zone I. Therefore no significant public service impacts will occur. xrv. RECREATION 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 requke the constraction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical eflfect on the envkonment? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • , X • • • X XIV. RECREATION a) No Impact: All ofthe 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 n b) No Impact: The project site is fiilly developed. Redevelopment ofthe property with atiiletic/recreational facilities for use by the school will not have an adverse physical effect on tiie envkonment. XV TRANSPORTATION/TRAFnC - Would tiie project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial m relation to the existmg traffic load and capacity ofthe street system (i.e., resuh m a substantial increase m either the number of vehicle trips, tiie volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at mtersections)? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X b) c) d) e) f) g) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Resuk in a change in ak traffic pattems, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change m 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)? Resuh in madequate emergency access? ResuU in msuflficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supportmg altemative transportation (e.g., bus tum- outs, bicycle racks)? • • • Kl • • • • • Kl • Kl • • • Kl • • Kl • o • • Kl XV. TP AM«^PORTATION/TRAFFIC V No Impact: The buildout projection of tiie project mcludes tiie addition of approximately 100 stiidents and Vnfr ,itv Most of tiie students will not have access to a vehicle and will not tiierefore contiibute significant ADT • thP bounding street system. The ADT associated witii 10 additional staff is msignificant. The project mvolves the fUmre redevelopment of an existing boardmg school where stiidents and faculty will be living on tiie campus. h-\ No Impact- SANDAG acting as tiie County Congestion Management Agency has designated tiiree roads ro rhn Santa Fe Rd El Camino Real and Palomar Akport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regk>nal ckculation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily ti-affic (ADT) and Existmg LOS on tiiese designated roads and highways m Carlsbad is Rancho Santa Fe Road El Camino Real Palomar Airport Road SR 78 1-5 * The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. Existmg ADT* LOS Buildout ADT* 17-35 "A-D" 35-56 27-49 "A-C" 33-62 10-57 "A-D" 30-73 124-142 156-180 199-216 "D" 260-272 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 ofthe 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 sti-ategies. Based on tiie design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and hi^ways and implementation of the CMP sti-ategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service m the short- term and at buildout. o) No Impact: The proposed Master Site Plan will not impact ak traffic pattems because no buildings are proposed that are tall enough to impact ak traffic pattems nor is the project located withm close proxunity to any airstrips. d) No Impact: All project ckculation improvements will be designed and constracted 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 Fke and Police Departments f) Less Than Significant Impact: The project will comply witii all City parking requkements to ensure an adequate supply of parkmg. ) No Impact: The proposed Master Site Plan mcludes the improvement of streets within the plan area which hiclude sidewalks and bike lanes. The project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supportmg altemative transportation. XVI UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would tiie project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requkements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Requke or result in the constraction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or e^q^ansion of existing facilities, the constraction of which would cause significant envkonmental effects? c) Requke or resuh in the constraction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the constraction of which could cause significant envkonmental effects? d) Have suflficient water supplies available to serve the project fi-om existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • • • • Kl • Kl • • • Kl • • • Kl 23 Rev. 01/02/07 6^ e) f) g) 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 m addition to the provider's existing commitments? Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • Less Than Significant Impact • No Impact • • • • • • S XVI. T TTU TTTFS ANP SERVICES SYSTEMS -g) No Impact The proposed project will be requked to comply witii all Regional Water Quaiity Conti-ol Board Requkements. In addition, tiie Zone 1 LFMP anticipated tiiat the project site would be developed witii 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 "banned snd designed to accommodate the growth projections for the City at build-out. The project does not resuh ^ development that will require expansion or constraction of new water facilities/supplies, wastewater treatment or m storm water dramage facilities. XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the envkonment substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustainmg levels threaten to elimmate a plant or animal commimity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate unportant examples of tiie major periods of Califomia 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 fiittire projects?) c) Does the project have envkonmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, eitiier dkectiy or mdkectly? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact • • • Kl • • • Kl • • • S 24 Rev. 01/02/07 n,' ra r^roposed project is in conformance with the zoning and land use fesi^a" the s.te a) No Impact: The ,o substantially degrade the quality of the enviromnent. The project site is aid does not have the Xh^d^rr^nL ^y fish or wildlife species; is not identified by any habrtat considered a developed ^'^fr^^'^l'^T^T^^^ plant or animal species; and does not contam m creation plan as containing ^^j-^^^rThLfo... the project will not reduce the habitat ofa known historical, archeolog-cU. ^^»»^^ ^ ^ „^ber of endangered plant and animal species; fish or wildlife ^ ^"1™;, ofany important examples of Califomia history or prehistory, and will not result m the eiu , . J • ;r«««rt<! that are individually limited, or cumulatively NO ^n,p>cUT.epro^- ^^^^^^^ There are two re^onal considerable because it >"r°'^'L7c3Sstod hJs the potential to have a cumulatively considerable mipact on. Lues that development -f^^^,^Z^,^^Z. Air quality would essentially ^ ^^^^^l^^^'^X Those issues '"'"''•"''^^rNaw Academy occu.. as a result ofthe Master Plan. Regardmg t^fc. *« P"!"*« development ofthe A^_«.dNa^Ac^ y ^^^^^^^^ ^ ^^^^^^^^ ^le project to the consistent ^* ,hS significant. circulation system are ies& ^ or . , . The proposed project does not create impacts involving envkomnentiil effects on human ,) No Impact: ^l ^^^^, ^f^, site will comply witii all City standards, bemgs because fiitiire oevci K r-1 2^ Rev. 01/02/07 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: DATE: BACKGROUND CASE NAME: Army and Navy Academy Master Plan 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City ofCarisbad Housing and Redevelopment 2965 Roosevelt Street Suite B. Carlsbad, CA 92008 1. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Brenna Corson, Hofman Planning Associates. (760)438-1465 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 2605 Carisbad Boulevard 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: General Steve Bliss, 2605 Carisbad Blvd.. Carlsbad, CA 92008 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RHM, P, and OS 7. ZONING: V, R-3. OS, and BAOZ 8. OMER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): CA Coastal Commission PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The proposed project consists ofa conceptual master site plan for the Army and Navy Academy that would guide the future renovation of the campus facilities. The Army and Navy Academy Master 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, resuhing in 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 Plan covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of existing land Rev. 07/26/02 uses and facilities on an existing and highly disturbed infill site. The campus contains a number ofbuildings 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. The plan does not constitute the addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school, therefore many of the environmental factors result in either 'no impact' or are not applicable due to the nature of the project. 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. 1 1 Aesthetics 1 1 Geology/Soils 1 1 Noise Q Agricultural Resources 1 1 Hazards/Hazardous Materials 1 1 Population and Housing 1 1 Air Quality 1 1 Hydrology/Water Quality 1 1 Public Services 1 1 Biological Resources 1 1 Land Use and Planning 1 1 Recreation [^Cultural Resources 1 1 Mineral Resources 1 1 Transportation/Circulation 1 1 Mandatory Findings of Significance 1 1 Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 07/26/02 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impacf 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 Impacf 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 Impacf 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 Impacf 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-Part 11", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but aU 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 Impacf 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. 07/03/02 • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impacf 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 11 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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 Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • X • • • X • • • • • M • m II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmentai 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? 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? 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 obstmct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? • • • • • • • • • • • m • H • m • s m • Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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? 0 Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? g) Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • m • • • • • • m • m • m • s • • • s Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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 paieontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 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? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • K • K • m • m • s • • • H • m Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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 resuh in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 0 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? 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? 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 • m • • • • • • m • K • • • H • • • K Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Infbrmation Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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) Impacts to groundwater quality? d) 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? e) Sub.stantially 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? f) 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? g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? h) 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? i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? j) 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? k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? I) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. m) 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 Significant Impact • • • • • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Less Than Signiticant No Impact Impact • m • • • • • • • m • s • K • m • K Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? o) 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? 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? 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? 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 groundboume vibration or groundboume 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? Potentially Significant Impact • • • • • • • • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact • • • • • • • • • • • • • • m • s • • • H • m • H • H • m • m • • s 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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? XIIL 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: Potentially Significant Impact • • • Potentially Signiticant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact • • • • • • • No Impact • m • H • m • m • m XIV. RECREATION 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? • i) Fire protection? • • • X ii) Police protection? • • • X iii) Schools? • • • X iv) Parks? • • • X v) Other public facilities? • • • X • • s 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact • • • • • • • • • • No Impact • K • m • s • m • s e) Result in inadequate emergency access? • • • X f) Result in insufficient paricing capacity? • • • X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs • • • X supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-• • • X outs, bicycle racks)? UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the • • • X applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? • • • X b) Require or result in the construction of new water or • • • X wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of • • • X existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm • • • X water drainage facilities or expansion of existing • • • X facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the • • • X project fi'om existing entitlements and resources, or • • • X are new or expanded entitlements needed? 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached.) 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? 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 Califomia 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 Impact • • • • Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated • • • • • • • • Less Than Significant Impact No Impact • m • m • m • K • m • M XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures 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 from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 13 Rev. 07/03/02 EXPLANATION I. AESTHETICS a) No Impact: The proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista because there is no scenic vista on the proposed project site. b) No Impact: The proposed project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a State scenic highway since none of these occurs on the proposed project site. c) No Impact: The proposed project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings since the project is proposing to renovate campus facilities according to the Development Guidelines for District 9 in the Redevelopment Area. d) No Impact: The proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light and glare, which would adversely affect views in the area. The proposed project is not intended to contain any materials that would cause such adverse affects. 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, to non-agricultural use since there is no Farmland on the site. b) No Impact: The proposed project does not fall within lands under Williamson Act contracts. c) No Impact: The proposed project will not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could resuh in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use since there is no Farmland on the site. III. AIR OUALITY a) No Itnpact: The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non-attainment area for ozone (O3), 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 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 9th through I Oth 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 The proposed project relates to the SIP and/or 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: • 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 or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact: The continued operation of the school land use was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan, and will result in additional gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. However, the additional power consumed and traffic generated will not be a significant increase that would contribute substantially to the violation of an air quality standard. Therefore the impact is considered less than significant. c) Less Than Significant Impact: The continued operation of the school land use was considered in the updated 1994 General Plan, and will result in additional gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently resuh in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB). Since the SDAB is a "non-attainment basin", any additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant and therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage alternative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. This project is consistent with the General Plan and the Final Master EIR 93-01. The MEIR included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts that 15 Rev. 07/03/02 applies to all land uses covered by the MEIR, including this project. Therefore, Impacts resulting 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 will be no greater than those already anticipated in the City's MEIR and will be less than significant. d) No Impact: Since there are no sensitive receptors in the vicinity, the proposed project will not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. e) No Impact: The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan Master EIR 93-01. Therefore, impacts involving the creation of objectionable odors will not be greater than those already anticipated in the MEIR. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: The proposed project will not 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 since none of these species occur within the proposed development area of the project site. The proposed project area has been previously graded 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 since none of these natural communities occur within the development area of the project site. c) No Impact: Since the proposed project will not alter any wetland area, the proposed project will not impact any federally protected wetiands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. d) No Impact: The proposed project does not encroach into habitat corridors and will not impact the movement of native or migratory wildlife species. e) No Impact: Since the proposed project has been designed in accordance with all policies and ordinances, the proposed project does not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. f) No Impact: 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. g) No Impact: The proposed project will not impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive since there are no tributary areas on the proposed project site. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES a) No Impact: The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5 since there are not historical resources on site. 16 Rev. 07/03/02 b) No Impact: The proposed project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource as defined in §15064.5 since there are no known archeological resources on site c) No Impact: The proposed project will not directiy or indirectly destroy a unique paieontological resource on site or unique geological feature since the site has previously been graded. d) No Impact: The proposed project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries since there are no known human remains on site. VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS a.i.) No Impact: Ground rupture generally is considered to occur along pre-existing fault strands. Since no active faults have been mapped on the site or in the vicinity of the project site, ground rupture on-site is considered unlikely. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving ground rupture. a.ii.) No Impact: The proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving strong seismic ground shaking because the proposed project is not on a known earthquake fault. a.iii.) No Impact: The proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving seismic- related ground failure, including liquefaction, because the proposed project is not on a known earthquake fault. a.iv.) No Impact: The proposed project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving landslides because the site is not at risk for landslides. b) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level, therefore analysis necessary to assess potential significant geologic impacts has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. c) No Impact: The proposed project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a resuh of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse. d) No Impact: The project will not be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18-1- B of the Uniform Building Code (1997) this not creating 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 a) No Impact: The proposed project does not propose to routinely transport, use, or dispose of hazardous materials because the project will consist of redevelopment and renovation 17 Rev. 07/03/02 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. However, the project will consist of redevelopment and renovation of existing land uses and facilities, and will not involve the emission or handling of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Therefore, there will be no impacts involving the emission or handling of hazardous materials on the school site. d) No Impact: This 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 proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan. Therefore, it would not create any safety hazards for people residing or working in the project area. 0 No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and thus 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 and MEIR, therefore impacts involving an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan will not be greater than those anticipated by the MEIR. 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, wildlands adjacent to urbanized areas, or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER OUALITY a) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess potential significant water quality standards or waste discharge requirement impacts has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. b) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess potential significant impacts involving the depletion of groundwater supplies or substantially interfering with groundwater recharge such that would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. Rev. 07/03/02 c) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess potential significant groundwater quality standards or waste discharge requirement impacts has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. d) No Impact: 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, highly disturbed infill site. The plan does not constitute the addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school. Therefore, the project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, and does not propose the alteration of a course of a stream or river in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. e) No Impact: 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, highly disturbed infill site. The plan does not constitute the addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school. Therefore, the project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area and does not propose the alteration of a course of a stream or river or to substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site f) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level, therefore analysis necessary to assess if the project will 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 has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. g) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level, therefore analysis necessary to assess if the project will substantially degrade water quality has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. h) No Impact: The proposed master site plan does not 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. i) No Impact: The proposed master site plan does not place structures within 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or redirect flood flows. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 j) No Impact: Since the project location for the proposed master site plan 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. k) No Impact: The project site of the proposed master site plan is not located in an area with a known history of seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. I) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. m) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will increase pollutant discharges into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. n) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will change receiving water quality during or following construction has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. o) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. p) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual perinit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will exceed applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING a) No Impact: The proposed project will not disrupt the physical arrangement of an established community since the private school has been located on the site since 1937 and is in conformance with zoning requirements. b) No Impact: 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 in 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: 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, highly disturbed infill site. The plan does not constitute the addition of major new land uses or a significant increase in the capacity of the school. Therefore, the project does not propose the elimination of habitat nor does the project encroach into any Habitat Management Plan preservation area. X. MINERAL RESOURCES: a) No Impact: Since 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: Since 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. XI. NOISE: a) No Impact: : For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will generate, or expose people to noise levels in excess of standards established by the local general plan ordinance or other applicable standards from other agencies has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. b) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will generate or expose people to excessive groundboume vibration or groundboume noise levels has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. c) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would 21 Rev. 07/03/02 be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will cause a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. d) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will cause a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. 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. 0 No Impact: The proposed project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING a) No Impact: Since 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: The Master Plan is a conceptual land use plan which covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of existing land uses and facilities on an existing site. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. c) No Impact: The Master Plan is a conceptual land use plan which covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of existing land uses and facilities on an existing site. Therefore, the proposed project will not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a.i.) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan is in conformance with the city's zoning, General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, impacts involving fire protection will not be greater then those already anticipated by the land use designation. a.ii.) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan is in conformance with the city's zoning, General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, impacts involving fire protection will not be greater then those already anticipated by the land use designation. a.iii.) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan is in conformance with the city's zoning. General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, impacts involving fire protection will not be greater then those already anticipated by the land use designation. 22 Rev. 07/03/02 a.iv.) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan is in conformance with the city's zoning. General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, impacts involving parks will not be greater then those already anticipated by the land use designation. a.v.) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan is in conformance with the city's zoning. General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, impacts to other public facilities will not be greater then those already anticipated by the land use designation. XIV. RECREATION a) No Impact: The Master Plan is a conceptual land use plan which covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of existing land uses and facilities on an existing site. Therefore, the proposed project will not substantially increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated because the project. b) No Impact: The Master Plan is a conceptual land use plan which covers redevelopment, relocation, and renovation of existing land uses and facilities on an existing site. Therefore, the project would not require the construction or expansion of public recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC a) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system, has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. b) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will exceed a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. c) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan project will not impact air traffic patterns. d) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan project does not include site designs that would result in hazardous design features or incompatible uses. e) No Impact: The proposed Master Plan is in conformance with the city's zoning, General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, it will not resuh in inadequate emergency access. 0 No Impact: The proposed Master Plan is in conformance with the city's zoning, General Plan, and Village Redevelopment Plan. Therefore, it will not result in insufficient parking capacity. 23 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact: The proposed Master Plan project does not conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation. XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS a) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board, has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. b) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. c) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will create the need to construct or expand existing storm water drainage facilities has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. d) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will create the need for new entitlements and/or resources has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. e) No Impact: For the actual physical construction and renovation of each new facility shown in the Master Plan, the developer would apply for an individual permit that would be evaluated for compliance with City Codes and policies, conformance with the master site plan, including impact on the environment. Each further development permit would under go further environmental review to determine potential and specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master site plan level. Therefore, analysis necessary to assess if the project will affect the projected demand anticipated by the wastewater treatment facility has not been provided as part of the conceptual master plan. 24 Rev. 07/03/02 0 No Impact: The project is in conformance with the approved community layout. Therefore, impacts involving landfill capacity will not be greater than those already anticipated. g) No Impact: The proposed project is in conformance with federal, state and local statues and regulations for solid waste. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) No Impact: The proposed project is in conformance with the zoning and land use designations for the site and does not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment. b) No Impact: The proposed project does not have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. c) No Impact: The proposed project does not create impacts involving environmental effects on human beings. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSIS a) 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 Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City ofCarisbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (EIR 93-01). City ofCarisbad Planning Department. September 1994. 25 Rev. 07/03/02