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.