Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2002-11-20; Planning Commission; Resolution 53141 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I Note: This resolution was denied. See votes. I PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 5314 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL ON PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED AT 3016 HIGHLAND DRIVE IN LOCAL FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 1. CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL CASE NO.: CUP 01-12 WHEREAS, Jan Taylor, “Developer,” has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by E. Lamont Geissinger, “Owner,” described as That portion of Lot Twenty-one of Patterson’s addition to town of Carlsbad, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 565, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, September 22,1888 (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on the on the 20th day of November, 2002, hold a duly noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning Commission as follows: A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration according to Exhibit “ND” dated October 28, 2002, and “PII” dated October 15, 2002, and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program attached hereto and made a part hereof, based on the following findings: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: a. it has reviewed, analyzed and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the Casa Montessori de Vista School Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and d. based on the EIA Part I1 and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the project will have a significant effect on the environment. Conditions: 1. Developer shall implement or cause the implementation of the Casa Montessori de Vista School Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ..I PC RES0 NO. 5314 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1c 11 12 13 14 15 1f 1; 18 1s 2c 21 27 2: 21 2! 2( 2: 21 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on the 20th day of November, 2002, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: Commissioner Heineman and White NOES: Chairperson Trigas, Commissioners Baker, Segall, and Whitton ABSENT: Commissioner Dominguez ABSTAIN: None SEENA TRIGAS, Chairperson CARLSBAD PLANNING COMMISSION ATTEST: Planning Director PC RES0 NO. 53 14 -3- MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Project AddressKOcation: 301 6 Highland Drive (APN 156-21 1-06) Southeast corner of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive Project Description: Conditional Use Permit for the conversion and expansion of an existing residence into a private school for grades 1-6. The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, but (1) revisions in the project plans or proposals made by, or agreed to by, the applicant before the proposed negative declaration and initial study are released for public review would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and (2) there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the City that the project “as revised” may have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration is hereby issued for the subject project. Justification for this action is on file in the Planning Department. A copy of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with supportive documents is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments fiom the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20 days of date of issuance. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626. DATED: OCTOBER 28,2002 CASE NO: CUP 01-12 CASE NAME: CASA MONTESSORI DE VISTA SCHOOL PUBLISH DATE: OCTOBER 28,2002 MICHAEL J. H~ZM~LER Planning Director 1635 Faraday Avenue Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 (760) 602-4600 FAX (760) 602-8559 www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us 49 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - PART I1 (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: CUP 01-12 DATE: October 15.2002 BACKGROUND 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. CASE NAME: Casa Montessori de Vista School LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad, Planning Department; 1635 Faraday Ave., Carlsbad, CA 92008 CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy, 760-602-4626 PROJECT LOCATION: 30 16 Highland Drive PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: Jan Taylor 3016 Highland Drive Carlsbad. CA 92008 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLM mesidential Low-Medium) ZONING: R-1-10,000 (Single-family residential, 10.000 sa.ft. min. lot size) OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): None PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SE'ITING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: Conditional Use Permit to allow the conversion and expansion of an existing residence located at 3016 Highland Drive into a private school for 36 children in grades 1-6. A parking lot, play areas, and landscaping are also included with the development proposal. The 0.7 acre site is located on the southeast comer of the intersection of Highland Drive and Carlsbad Village Drive. Single family residential properties surround the site. 1 Rev. 07/03/02 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” or “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. u Aesthetics 0 Agricultural Resources rn Air Quality 0 Biological Resources u Cultural Resources u Geology/Soils [7 HazardskIazardous Materials HydrologyNater Quality 0 Land Use and Planning 0 Mineral Resources [7 Mandatory Findings of Significance Noise Population and Housing 0 Public Services 0 Recreation rn TransportatiodCirculation 0 Utilities & Service Systems 2 Rev. 07/03/02 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency) 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. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 0 I find that the proposed project MAY have “potentially significant impact(s)” on the environment, but at least one potentially significant impact 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. A Negative Declaration is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. [7 I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. 3 Rev. 07/03/02 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 Impact” answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A “No Impact” answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. “Less Than Significant Impact” applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from “Potentially Significant Impact” to a “Less Than Significant Impact.” The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. “Potentially Significant Impact” is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. Based on an “EIA-Part 11”, if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but @ potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. When “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a “Statement of Overriding Considerations’’ has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid preparing an EIR if there are mitigation measures to clearly reduce adverse impacts to less than significant, and those mitigation measures are agreed to by the developer prior to public review. In this case, the appropriate “Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated” may be checked and a Mitigated Negative Declaration may be prepared. 4 Rev. 07/03/02 0 An EIR be prepared if “Potentially Significant Impact” is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a “Statement of Overriding Considerations” for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the EIA-Part I1 analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears at the end of the form under DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. 5 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Impact I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings 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? II. AGRICULTRAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 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 obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact Unless Less Than 0 0 0 OIXI 0 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 0 IXI 6 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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: 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? 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? 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? 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? Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Impact tributary areas that are environmentally sensitive? Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Significant Mitigation Impact Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 El 0 0 Less Than Significant No Impact Impact om OBI om om om ON om 7 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). V. CULTURAL RESOURCES - Would the project: Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 0 0 om Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in 0 15064.5? 0 0 OIXI Cause a substantial adverse change in the signifi- cance of an archeological resource pursuant to 9 15064.5? Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontologi- cal resource or site or unique geologic feature? 0 0 0151 0 0 OIXI 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: 0 0 om 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. 0 0 0 0 om OIXI ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 0 0 0 0 om om iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 0 om 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? 0 d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Table 18 - 1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 8 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 0 0 OIXI VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I7 0 0 OIXI om OIXI OIXI OIXI OIXI OIXI WI. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 0 0 OIXI 9 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 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)? 0 0 0 IXI 0 0 0 c) Impacts to groundwater quality? 0 0 IXI IXI IXI 0 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) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off- site? 0 0 o 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! 0 0 0 IXI g) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI 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? 0 0 IXI i) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? 0 0 IXI 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI k) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1) Increased erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. 0 0 0 Ixl m) Increased pollutant discharges (eg, 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 (eg, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? 10 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Unless Less Than Mitigation Significant Incorporated Impact Potentially Significant Impact 0 No Impact 0 o n) Changes to receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? IXI 0 0 0 IXI IXI 0) Increase in any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? 0 0 0 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI Ixl 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? 17 0 0 Ixl 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? 0 0 0 0 ISI Ixl 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? 0 0 XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: 0 0 a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? 0 0 0 IXI IXI b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 0 0 0 0 IXI d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 11 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? 0 0 OIXI fJ 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? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered government facilities, a need for new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: i) Fire protection? ii) Police protection? iii) Schools? iv) Parks? v) Other public facilities? 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? 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 om 0 OIXI 0 0 0 0 0 0 OIXI 12 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). 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: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing trafflc load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (eg, sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Result in inadequate emergency access? Result in insufficient parking capacity? Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn- outs, bicycle racks)? XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? Potentially Significant Impact 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 0 Less Than Significant Impact 0 No Impact IXI IXIU IXI 0 0 0 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI IXI 13 Rev. 07/03/02 Issues (and Supporting Information Sources). Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the 17 o om 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? 0 0 OB g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 0 0 om XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 0 0 OB 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?) 0 0 om c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 0 0 om 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 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. 14 Rev. 07/03/02 DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION AESTHETICS No Impact. The project will have no aesthetic impacts since the proposed building addition is designed to match the existing structure. Specimen size landscaping will be provided around the parking area to screen vehicles from view. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impact on agricultural resources due to the proposed project. The subject site is zoned Single-family residential and the proposed use will be located on a previously developed site. The conversion of the existing residence to a private school will cause no impacts on agricultural resources. AIR QUALITY-Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a federal and state non- attainment area for ozone (03), and a state non-attainment area for particulate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM,,,). 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 (SNAG). A plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 199 1 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non- attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARB) after public hearings on November 9th through 10th in 1994, and was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for approval. After considerable analysis and debate, particularly regarding airsheds with the worst smog problems, EPA approved the SIP in mid- 1996. The proposed project relates to the SIP andor RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city’s and the County’s general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. Section 15125(B) of the State of California Environment Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines contains specific reference to the need to evaluate any inconsistencies between the proposed project and the applicable air quality management plan. Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are part of the RAQS. The RAQS and TCM plan set forth the steps needed to accomplish attainment of state and federal ambient air quality standards. The California Air Resources Board provides criteria for determining whether a project conforms with the RAQS which include the following: 0 Is a regional air quality plan being implemented in the project area? 0 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 15 Rev. 07/03/02 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) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is in the City of Oceanside. Data available for this monitoring site through April, 2002 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (one day in both 2000 and 2001) and one day in 2001 for the federal 8-hour average for ozone and one day for the 24-hour state standard for suspended particulates in 1996. No violations of any other air quality standards have been recorded recently. c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard? Less Than Significant Impact. The Air Basin is currently in a non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. The ,proposed project would represent a contribution to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the proposed project would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the proposed project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15 130 (a)(4), the proposed project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? No Impact. As noted above, the proposed project would not result in substantial pollutant emissions or concentrations. No impact is assessed. e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? No Impact. The proposed project constitutes use of an existing building for a private school and will not generate any odors. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES No Impact. There will be no impacts on biological resources due to the proposed project since the site has already been graded and developed with a single-family residence. The site does not contain any sensitive habitat or species. CULTURAL RESOURCES No Impact. The subject site is an already improved and disturbed site. It is developed with a single- family residence which will be converted into a private school. There will be no impacts on cultural resources. GEOLOGY AND SOILS No Impact. There will be no impacts on geology and soil since the project constitutes the expansion and conversion of an existing single-family residence into a private school. All new construction will be required to comply with UBC construction standards. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS 16 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. There will be no impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials. The project constitutes conversion of an existing building into a private school. The project is located in an urbanized area and is not adjacent to wildlands. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY No Impact. The project does not violate any water quality standards nor does it impact ground water supply. The project is conditioned to be consistent with the City’s requirements of National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The project consists of the expansion and conversion of an existing residence into a private school and according to the flood insurance rate map, the subject site is located outside the 500 year floodplain. LAND USE AND PLANNING No Impact. The project is consistent with General Plan, Local Coastal Program and Zoning designations in that the site is designated as “Residential Low-medium Density” in the Land Use element of the General Plan and is zoned “Single-family residential”. These designations allow the establishment of a private school with a Conditional Use Permit. The project constitutes the expansion and conversion of an existing building into a private school. MINERAL RESOURCES No Impact. According to the City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping Study, November 1992, the project site does not contain any mineral resources. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource or mineral resource recovery site. NOISE Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated. The project site is located between the 60 and 65 dBA CNEL noise contour as shown on the Existing Noise Exposure Contours Map of the City’s General Plan. The City’s Noise Guidelines Manual states that the Non-Residential Interior Noise Guideline for schools is 45 &A CNEL. Since the existing structure may not be adequately constructed to achieve an exterior to interior noise reduction to 45 dBA, a mitigation measure is included to require submittal of an acoustical analysis concurrent with plan check to determine if additional noise attenuation will be required. If it is determined that mitigation is required, noise mitigation of the interior spaces is feasible and attainable through standard construction practices and techniques. There may be an increase in exterior noise levels due to school children playing outside, however, a 6’ high solid masonry wall will be constructed along the east and a portion of the south property lines. A solid masonry wall such as that proposed is the most effective barrier for protecting the surrounding properties from on site ground level noise. POPULATION AND HOUSING No Impact. The project consists of the expansion and conversion of an existing single-family residence into a private school. As such, there will be no significant impacts on population and housing. PUBLIC SERVICES No Impact. The project consists of the expansion and conversion of an existing single-family residence into a private school. As such, there will be no significant impact on public services. 17 Rev. 07/03/02 RECREATION No Impacts. Recreational facilities will not be impacted by the conversion of the existing residence into a private school. TRANSPORTATION/TRAF’FIC-Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffk load and capacity of the street system? Less Than Significant Impact. The project will generate approximately 162 ADT, 78 morning peak hour tips and 76 afternoon peak hour trips. The school will have staggered start and dismissal times within three tracks of 12 students. The site plan can accommodate 12 vehicles in the stacking lanes and 4 parking spaces are provided for the teachers. Therefore, the proposed site plan can provide adequate storage for vehicles that are picking-up or dropping off children. According to the traffic study, the intersection Carlsbad Village Drivernighland Drive will operate at LOS A with the proposed project and no improvements are required at the intersection nor are any off-site improvements identified in the traffic study for the proposed project. The proposed project would not result in a significant increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system. The impacts from the proposed project are, therefore, less than significant. b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less Than Significant Impact. SANDAG acting as the County Congestion Management Agency has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The Existing and Buildout average daily traffic (ADT) and Existing LOS on these designated roads and highways in Carlsbad is: Existinp ADT* Buildout ADT* Rancho Santa Fe Road 15-32 “A-C’, 28-43 El Camino Real 21-50 “A-C” 32-65 Palomar Airport Road 10-52 ‘‘A-B” 29-77 SR 78 120 “F’ 144 1-5 183-198 “D” 2 19-249 *The numbers are in thousands of daily trips. The Congestion Management Program’s (CMP) acceptable Level of Service (LOS) standard is “E”, or LOS “F” if that was the LOS in the 1990 base year (e.g., SR 78 in Carlsbad was LOS “F” in 1990). Accordingly, all designated roads and highways are currently operating at or better than the acceptable standard LOS. Note that the buildout ADT projections are based on the full implementation of the region’s general and community plans. The proposed project is consistent with the general plan and, therefore, its traffic was used in modeling the buildout projections. Achievement of the CMP acceptable Level of Service (LOS) “E” standard assumes implementation of the adopted CMP strategies. Based on the design capacity(ies) of the designated roads and highways and implementation of the CMP strategies, they will function at acceptable level(s) of service in the short-term and at buildout. c) 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? 18 Rev. 07/03/02 No Impact. The proposed project does not include any aviation components. The project is consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan for the McClellan-Palomar Airport. It would not, therefore, result in a change of air traffic patterns or result in substantial safety risks. No impact assessed. d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses? No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The proposed project is consistent with the City’s general plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) Result in inadequate emergency access? No Impact. The proposed project has been designed and will be conditioned to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. 0 Result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project provides one parking space per employees plus an adequate area for loading and unloading of children, consistent with the zoning code requirements. No impact assessed. g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks, etc.)? No Impact. The project is adjacent to an existing bus line and bicycle lane. There is adequate space at the rear of the site for bicycle storage if necessary. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS No Impacts. The project consists of the conversion of an existing residence into a private school. No significant impacts on utilities and services systems are anticipated. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE No Impact -The proposed conversion of the existing residence to a private school will not degrade the quality of the environment. The project site does not contain any fish or wildlife species. Therefore, the project will not reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. The project site is currently developed with an older residential structure and the site has been previously disturbed by grading, and is not identified by any habitat conservation plan as containing a protected, rare or endangered plant or animal community. Therefore, the project will not threaten or reduce the number a plant or animal community. Although the residence is listed on the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, it is not listed as a significant resource. The existing residence will be preserved and the proposed addition is complementary to the existing architectural design. The project will not result in the elimination of any important examples of California History or prehistory. Less ,Than Significant Impact -There are two regional issues that development within the City of Carlsbad has the potential to have a cumulatively considerable impact on. Those issues are air quality and regional circulation. As discussed above, the project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. As described above, however, emissions associated with the development would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with the development of the site as a school, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130 (a)(4), the project’s contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. 19 Rev. 07/03/02 Also, as discussed above, the County Congestion Management Agency (CMA) has designated three roads (Rancho Santa Fe Rd., El Camino Real and Palomar Airport Rd.) and two highway segments in Carlsbad as part of the regional circulation system. The CMA has determined, based on the City’s growth projections in the General Plan, that these designated roadways will function at acceptable levels of service in the short-term and at build-out. The project is consistent with the City’s growth projections, and therefore, the cumulative impact from the project to the regional circulation system is less than significant. With regard to any other potential impact associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that the development of the site will not result in a significant cumulative considerable impact. Less than Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated - Based upon the nature of the project and the fact that future development of the site will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. The project site is located in an area which may be exposed to significantly high noise levels generated from traffic on adjacent roadways. As discussed above, any potential impact from noise can be mitigated to a level less than significant through construction techniques. If, after review of an acoustical analysis, noise mitigation measures are required they will be incorporated into the desigdupgrades for the building. Any future development on the site will be required to comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and City regulations, which will ensure the development of the site will not result in an adverse impact on human beings, either directly or indirectly. EARLIER ANALYSIS USED AND SUPPORTING INFORMATION SOURCES The following documents were used in the analysis of this project and are on file in the City of Carlsbad Planning Department located at 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California, 92008. 1. Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update (MEIR 93-01). City of Carlsbad Planning Department. March 1994. 2. City of Carlsbad Geotechnical Hazards Analysis and Mapping. Study, November 1992. 3. Revised Traffic Impact Analysis for Proposed 45-student Casa Montessori De Vista School in the City of Carlsbad, Darnel1 & Associates, Inc., April 22,2002. 4. Casa Montessori De Vista School in the City of Carlsbad - Reduced Trip Generation, Darnel1 & Associates, Inc., July 25,2002. 20 Rev. 07/03/02 LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit an acoustical analysis which analyzes the noise impacts of the roadway on the interior spaces of the building. If it is found that interior noise levels exceed 45 dBA, then recommendations for interior noise mitigation shall be included. The acoustical consultant shall review the building plans and submit a letter stating that that the building plans have been designed (existing and proposed construction) to comply with the State of California interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The architectural plans shall incorporate any additional measures (thicker glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of vents, or artificial circulation system) to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly fiom the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct of six feet plus one sharp 90" bend. APPLICANT CONCURRENCE WITH MITIGATION MEASURES THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT I HAVE REVIEWED THE ABOVE MITIGATING MEASURES AND CONCUR WITH THE ADDITION OF THESE MEASURES TO THE PROJECT. 21 Rev. 07/03/02 PROJECT NAME: Casa Montessori De Vista School FILE NUMBERS: CUP 01-12 APPROVAL DATE: CONDITIONAL NEG. DEC.: The following environmental mitigation measures were incorporated into the Conditions of Approval for this project in order to mitigate identified environmental impacts to a level of insignificance. A completed and signed checklist for each mitigation measure indicates that this mitigation measure has been complied with and implemented, and fulfills the City's monitoring requirements with respect to Assembly Bill 31 80 (Public Resources Code Section 21081.6). Mitigation Measure 1. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the owner shall submit an acoustical analysis which analyzes the noise impacts of the roadway on the interior spaces of the building. If it is found that interior noise levels exceed 45 dBA, then recommendations for interior noise mitigation shall be included. The acoustical consultant shall review the building plans and submit a letter stating that that the building plans have been designed (existing and proposed construction) to comply with the State of California interior noise standard of 45 CNEL. The architectural plans shall incorporate any additional measures (thicker glazing, sound absorption material, shielding of vents, or artificial circulation system) to attenuate the noise to an acceptable level. Where windows are required to be unopenable or kept closed in order to meet the interior noise standards, mechanical ventilation and cooling, if necessary, shall be provided to maintain a habitable environment. The system shall supply two air changes per hour to each habitable room including 20% (one-fifth) fresh make-up air obtained directly from the outdoors. The fresh air inlet duct shall be of sound attenuating construction and shall consist of a minimum of ten feet of straight or curved duct of six feet plus one sharp 90" bend. Monitoring Tvoe Plan check- Prior to issuance of a building permit Monitoring DeDartment Planning/ Building Shown on Plans Verified Implementation Remarks ExDlanation of Headinas: Type = Project, ongoing, cumulative. Monitoring Dept. = Department, or Agency, responsible for monitoring a particular mitigation measure. information. Shown on Plans = When mitigation measure is shown on plans, this column will be initialed and dated. Verified Implementation =When mitigation measure has been implemented, Remarks = Area for describing status of ongoing mitigation measure, or for other this column will be initialed and dated. RD - Appendix P.