Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRP 99-14; Army & Navy Academy Dormitory; Redevelopment Permits (RP) (5)STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE RESOURCES AGENCY CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMIMION SAN DIEGO COAST AREA 7575 METROPOLITAN DRIVE, SUITE 103 SAN DIEGO, CA 92108-4402 (619)767-2370 GRAY DAVIS, Governor DATE TO FROM RE: NOTIFICATION OF DEFICIENT NOTICE RECEIVED August 21, 2001 Lori Rosenstein, Management Analyst City of Carlsbad, Planning Department 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 Bill Ponder, Coastal Program Analyst Local Permit No. 99-14 (Commission File No. 6-CVR-01-159) AUG '^ 2 2001 CITY OF CARLSBAD HOWSING&REDE^LOPMENT OffARTMENT Please be advised of the following deficiency(ies) in the notice of local action we have received Applicant(s) Army & Navy Academy Description Construction of an 80-bed dormitory on that portion of the Army & Navy Academy property. Location West side of Carlsbad Blvd. South of Pacific Avenue, Carlsbad (San Diego County) Deficiencv noted bv check mark 1. xx_ Project description not included (Is this appealable to the Coastal Commission? V\^ould amendment to the Design Guidelines require a Local Coastal Program Amendment?) 2. Conditions for approval and written findings not included 3. Procedures for appeal of the decision to the Coastal Commission not specified 4. Notice not given to those who requested it As a result of the deficiencv(ies) noted Post-Certification LCP The effective date of the local government action has been suspended, and the 10 working day Commission appeal period will not commence until a sufficient notice of action Post-Certification LUP The effective date of the local government action has been suspended, and the 20 working day Commission appeal period will not commence until a sufficient notice of action is received in this office. (14 Cal. Admin. Code Sections 13570,13572.) If you have any questions, please contact Bill Ponder at the San Diego Coast Area CALIFORNIA COASTAL COMMISSION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT) CASE NO: ^^'^H / Ci^P -^9 DATE RECEIVED: ^ll^K*^ (To be completed by staff) BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: Army and Navy Academy Improvements 2. APPLICANT: tBP/Arch1 tecture 3. ADDRESS AND PHONE NUMBER OF APPLICANT: 2300 Newport Blvd. Newport Beach, CA 92663 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Phase 1:80 Bed Student Dormitory, 71 Parking Spaj^as, and Street Improvements along Mountain View PrivpjPhase3 :64 Bed Student Dormi tor Vj Phase 8:80 Bed Student nnrmitnry . SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: Please check any of the environmental factors listed below that would be potentially affected by this project. This would be any environmental factor that has at least one impact checked "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" in the checklist on the following pages. I I Land Use and Planning I I Population and Housing I I Geological Problems • Water []] Air Quality I I Transportation/Circulation Public Services I I Biological Resources Utilities & Service Systems I I Energy & Mineral Resources Aesthetics I I Hazards Q Cultural Resources I I Noise Q Recreation I I Mandatory Findings of Significance Rev. 03/28/96 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment to detennine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source docimient to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not adversely significant, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect firom "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. • Based on an "EIA-Part II", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant effect on the environment, but aH potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental dociunent have been incorporated into this project, then no additionai environmental document is required (Prior Compliance). • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect vnil be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if.the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant effect on the environment. Rev. 03/28/96 • If there are one or more potentially significant effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the foUovsdng circumstances: (1) the potentially significant effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an Earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the impact to less than significant, or; (4) through the EIA-Part II 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 attenfion should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents mdy\be referred to and attached) I. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal:. a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? (Source #(s): ( ) b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ( ) c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ( ) d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses? ( ) e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? ( ) II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ( ) b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major infrastructure)? ( ) c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ( ) III. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ( ) b) Seismic ground shaking? ( ) c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ( ) d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ( ) e) Landslides or mudflows? ( ) f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? ( ) g) Subsidence of the land? ( ) h) Expansive soils? ( ) i) Unique geologic or physical features? ( ) IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage pattems, or the rate and amount of surface mnoff? ( ) b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact • • • • • • H • • • a • • • a • • • • • • ra • • • ra • • • • • • • E • • • B • • • E • • • H • • • m • • • H • • • a • • • H • • • • • • • • • Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may he referred to and attached) c) d) e) f) g) h) i) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface water quality (e.g. temperamre, dissolved oxygen or mrbidity)? ( ) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water body?( ) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ( ) Changes in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ( ) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater*? ( ) Impacts to groundwater quality? ( ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available for public water supplies'? ( ) V. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation*? ( ) b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants'? ( ) c) Alter air movement, moismre, or temperamre, or cause any change in climate? ( ) d) Create objectionable odors? ( ) VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion*? ( ) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? ( ) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearbv uses*? ( ) ' Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site*? ( ) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists'? ( ) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting altemative transportation (e.g. bus mmouts, bicycle racks)*? ( ) Rail, waterbome or air fraffic impacts'? ( ) a) b) c) d) e) f) g) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact Unless t Impact Impact Mitigation t Impact Incorporated • • • • • • E • • • • • • • • • a • • • s • • • a • • • • • • m • • • m • • • m • • • X • • • X • • • m • • • • • • • • • E • • • a Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals, and birds? ( ) b) Locally designated species (e.g, heritage frees)? ( ) c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? ( ) d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vemal pool)'? ( ) e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ( ) Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than No Significan Impact t Impact • • • • • • a • • • E] • • • a • • • VIIL ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal? a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ( ) b) Use non-renewable resources m a wasteful and inefficient manner? ( ) c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of fumre value to the region and the residents of the State? ( ) IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? ( ) b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ( ) c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazards? ( ) d) Exposure of people to existing soufces of potential health hazards? ( ) e) Increase fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass, or frees? ( ) X. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ( ) b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ( ) XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered govemment services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ( ) b) Police protection? ( ) c) Schools? ( ) • • • H • • • H • • • m • • • • • • a • • • s • • • H • • • B • • • H • • • • • • • • • E • • • B Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads'? ( ) e) Other govemmental services? ( ) XII. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ( ) b) Communications systems? ( ) c) Local or regional water freatment or disfribution facilities? ( ) d) Sewer or septic tanks? ( ) e) Storm water drainage? ( ) f) Solid waste disposal? ( ) g) Local or regional water supplies? ( ) XIII. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic or vista or scenic highway'? ( ) b) Have a demonstrate negative aesthetic effect*? ( ) c) Create light or glare? ( ) XIV. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Disturb paieontological resources? ( ) b) Dismrb archaeological resources? ( ) c) Affect historical resources? ( ) d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic culmral values'? ( ) e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ( ) XV. RECREATIONAL. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ( ) b) Affect existing recreational oppormnities'? ( ) Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significan Impact Impact • • • Unless Mitigation Incorporated t Impact • • • • • • B • • • H • • m • • • • E • • • S • • • X • • • X • • • llJ • • • a • • m • • • m • • • m • • • • • a • • • m • • • X • • • X • a • a • m Rev. 03/28/96 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources): (Supplemental documents may be referred to and attached) XVI. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or 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 resfrict 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? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable fumre 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 Significan t Impact No Impact • s • E • ffl XVIL 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 fi-om 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. SEE ATTACHED SHEET Rev. 03/28/96 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION Please use this area to discuss any of the environmental factors that were checked "No impact" yet lack any information citations and any factors that were checked "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated." The City has adopted a "Statement of Overriding Consideration" with regard to air quality and circulation impacts resulting from the normal buildout according to the General Plan. The following sample text is intended to guide your discussion of the impacts to these environmental factors. AIR OUALITY: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased gas and electric power consumption and vehicle miles traveled. These subsequently result in increases in the emission of carbon monoxide, reactive organic gases, oxides of nitrogen and sulfur, and suspended particulates. These aerosols are the major contributors to air pollution in the City as well as in the San Diego Air Basin. Since the San Diego Air Basin is a "non-attainment basin", 2uiy additional air emissions are considered cumulatively significant: therefore, continued development to buildout as proposed in the updated General Plan will have cumulative significant impacts on the air quality of the region. To lessen or minimize the impact on air quality associated with General Plan buildout, a variety of mitigation measures are recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include: 1) provisions for roadway and intersection improvements prior to or concurrent with development; 2) measures to reduce vehicle trips through the implementation of Congestion and Transportation Demand Management; 3) provisions to encourage altemative modes of transportation including mass transit services; 4) conditions to promote energy efficient building and site design; and 5) participation in regional growth management strategies when adopted. The applicable and appropriate General Plan air quality mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design of the project or are included as conditions of project approval. Operation-related emissions are considered cumulatively significant because the project is located within a "non-attainment basin", therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for air quality impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the Generai Plan's Final Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of air quality impacts is required. This document is available at the Planning Department. CIRCULATION: The implementation of subsequent projects that are consistent with and included in the updated 1994 General Plan will result in increased traffic volumes. Roadway segments will be adequate to accommodate buildout traffic; however, 12 full and 2 partial intersections will be severely impacted by regional through-traffic over which the City has no jurisdictional control. These generally include all freeway interchange areas and major intersections along Carlsbad Boulevard. Even with the implementation of roadway improvements, a number of intersections 9 Rev. 03/28/96 are projected to fail the City's adopted Growth Management performance standards at buildout. To lessen or minimize the impact on circulation associated with General Plan buildout, numerous mitigation measures have been recommended in the Final Master EIR. These include measures to ensure the provision of circulation facilities concurrent with need; 2) provisions to develop altemative modes of transportation such as trails, bicycle routes, additional sidewalks, pedestrian linkages, and commuter rail systems; and 3) participation in regional circulation strategies when adopted. The diversion of regional through-traffic from a failing Interstate or State Highway onto City streets creates impacts that are not within the jurisdiction of the City to control. The applicable and appropriate General Plan circulation mitigation measures have either been incorporated into the design ofthe project or are included as conditions of project approval. Regional related circulation impacts are considered cumulatively significant because of the failure of intersections at buildout of the General Plan due to regional through-traffic, therefore, the "Initial Study" checklist is marked "Potentially Significant Impact". This project is consistent with the General Plan, therefore, the preparation of an EIR is not required because the recent certification of Final Master EIR 93-01, by City Council Resolution No. 94-246, included a "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" for circulation impacts. This "Statement Of Overriding Considerations" applies to all subsequent projects covered by the General Plan's Master EIR, including this project, therefore, no further environmental review of circulation impacts is required. LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES (IF APPLICABLE^ N/A ATTACH MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (IF APPLICABLE) N/A 10 Rev. 03/28/96 RESPONSE TO EARLIER ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Army and Navy Academy Dormitory Buildings, Parking and Street Improvements A. Earlier analysis used: City ofCarlsbad, Negative Declaration, RP 94-02, CDP 94-02 and CCP 94-02, as approved in 1995. B. Impacts adequately addressed: All effects from the checklist appear to have been addressed in the negative declaration. C. Mitigation measures: "Each future development permit for physical construction of facilities and buildings would undergo further environmental review to determine specific environmental impacts that could not be assessed at the master plan level".