Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-02-04; Planning Commission; Resolution 65301 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 6530 2 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE 3 CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR A MINOR 4 MASTER PLAN AMENDMENT TO ALLOW THE SHARED USE OF PRIVATE SCHOOL FACILITIES TO SATISFY THE REMAINING COMMUNITY FACILITIES REQUIREMENT 6 FOR THE BRESSI RANCH MASTER PLAN (BRMP) AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR 7 THE PACIFIC RIDGE SCHOOL FOR A PHASED CAMPUS MASTER PLAN THAT INCLUDES DEVELOPMENT OF A 8 PERMANENT HIGH SCHOOL BUILDING, GYMNASIUM, 9 AND ATHLETIC FIELD; THE TEMPORARY USE OF MODULAR AND MOBILE BUILDINGS; AND A PROPOSED 10 COMMUNITY FACILITY PLAN FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN PLANNING AREA 13 OF THE BRMP AND 11 GENERALLY LOCATED NORTH OF GREENHAVEN DRIVE, SOUTH OF BRESSI RANCH WAY, EAST OF OPEN SPACE 12 AREA 3 AND WEST OF EL FUERTE STREET IN LOCAL ! 3 FACILITIES MANAGEMENT ZONE 17. CASE NAME: PACIFIC RIDGE SCHOOL EXPANSION 14 CASE NO.: MP 178(G)/CUP 06-11 (A) 15 WHEREAS, PRS Acquisition and Construction, LLC, "Developer", has filed a verified application with the City of Carlsbad regarding property owned by PRS Acquisition 17 and Construction, LLC, "Owner", described as 18 Parcel "A" (Formerly Parcels 2 and 3 of Parcel Map No 19 19958), as shown on Exhibit "B" attached to Certificate of 2Q Compliance for Adjustment Plat recorded December 24, 2007 as Instrument No. 2007-0789135 of Official Records, 21 together with property owned by Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus 22 Christ of Latter-Day Saints, a Utah Corporation Sole, "Owner", described as 24 Parcel 4 of City of Carlsbad MS 04-19, in the City of Carlsbad, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map 25 thereof No. 19958 recorded in the Office of the County Recorder of said county on March 27, 200626 27 ("the Property"); and 28 WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration was prepared in conjunction with said project; and 1 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did on February 4, 2009, hold a duly 2 noticed public hearing as prescribed by law to consider said request; and 3 WHEREAS, at;said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony 4 <- and arguments, examining the initial study, analyzing the information submitted by staff, and 6 considering any written comments received, the Planning Commission considered all factors 7 relating to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Planning 9 Commission as follows: 10 A) That the foregoing recitations are true and correct. 11 B) That based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, the Planning Commission hereby ADOPTS the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Exhibit 13 "MND", according to Exhibits "Notice of Intent (NOI)," and "Environmental Impact Assessment Form - Initial Study (EIA)," attached hereto and made a part 14 hereof, based on the following findings: 15 Findings: 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad does hereby find: 17 a. it has reviewed, analyzed, and considered the Mitigated Negative Declaration for 18 Pacific Ridge School Expansion - MP 178(G)/CUP 06-11(A), the environmental impacts therein identified for this project and any comments 19 thereon prior to APPROVING the project; and 20 b. the Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with 21 requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State Guidelines and the Environmental Protection Procedures of the City of Carlsbad; and 22 c. it reflects the independent judgment of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad; and 24 d. based on the EIA and comments thereon, there is no substantial evidence the 25 project will have a significant effect on the environment. 26 Conditions: 27 1. Developer shall implement, or cause the implementation of, the Pacific Ridge School 28 Expansion Project Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. PCRESONO. 6530 -2- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on February 4, 2009, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners Baker, Boddy, Cardosa, Dominguez, Douglas, Whitton, and Chairperson Montgomery MAR?EL**. MONTGOpERY, CARLSBAD PLANNINCFCOMMIS ATTEST: X I&AA DON NEU Planning Director PC RESO NO. 6530 -3- City of Carlsbad Planning Department CASE NAME: CASE NO: NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION Pacific Ridge School Expansion PROJECT LOCATION: MP 178(GVCUP06-11(A) 6269 El Fuerte Street, located on the west side of El Fuerte Street between Bressi Ranch Way and Greenhaven Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Pacific Ridge School for a Phased Campus Master Plan including development of a permanent High School building and gymnasium, and a temporary use of mobile buildings. A sports field would be located on the vacant 5.51 acre site north of Palmetto Drive. A Master Plan Amendment is required to allow the private school to satisfy the remaining Community Facilities requirement for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. PROPOSED DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) did not identify any potentially significant impacts on the environment. Therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration will be recommended for adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. Comments from the public are invited. Please submit comments in writing to the Planning Department within 20-days of the date of this notice. The proposed project and Mitigated Negative Declaration are subject to review and approval/adoption by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission and City Council. Additional public notices will be issued when those public hearings are scheduled. If you have any questions, please call Barbara Kennedy in the Planning Department at (760) 602-4626. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD December 18, 2008 - January 7, 2009 PUBLISH DATE December 18. 2008 1635 Faraday Avenue • Carlsbad, CA 92008-7314 • (760) 602-4600 • FAX (760) 602-8559 • www.ci.carlsbad.ca.us MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NAME: Pacific Ridge School Expansion CASE NO: MP 178(GVCUP 06-11 (A) PROJECT LOCATION: 6269 El Fuerte Street, located on the west side of El Fuerte Street between Bressi Ranch Way and Greenhaven Drive PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An amendment to the Condition Use Permit for the Pacific Ridge School for a Phased Campus Master Plan including development of a permanent High School building and gymnasium, and a temporary use of mobile buildings. A sports field would be located on the vacant 5.15 acre site north of Palmetto Drive. A Minor Master Plan Amendment is required to allow the private school to satisfy the remaining Community Facilities requirement for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. DETERMINATION: The City of Carlsbad has conducted an environmental review of the above described project pursuant to the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act and the Environmental Protection Ordinance of the City of Carlsbad. As a result of said review, the initial study (EIA Part 2) identified potentially significant effects on the environment, and the City of Carlsbad finds as follows: I I Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been added to the project. 1X1 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. (Mitigated Negative Declaration applies only to the effects that remained to be addressed). I | Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Therefore, nothing further is required. A copy of the initial study (EIA Part 2) documenting reasons to support the Negative Declaration is on file in the Planning Department, 1635 Faraday Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008. ADOPTED: [CLICK HERE dateT pursuant to [CLICK HERE Administrative Approval. PC/CC Resolution No., or CC Ordinance No.1 ATTEST: DON NEU Planning Director ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM - INITIAL STUDY (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT) CASE NO: MP178(G)/CUP 06-11 (A) DATE: October 31. 2008 BACKGROUND 1. CASE NAME: PACIFIC RIDGE SCHOOL EXPANSION 2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Carlsbad 3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER: Barbara Kennedy - 760-602-4626 4. PROJECT LOCATION: 6269 El Fuerte Street, located on El Fuerte Street between Bressi Ranch Way and Greenhaven Drive 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: PRS Acquisition and Construction. LLC, 6269 El Fuerte St. Carlsbad, CA 92009 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Community Facilities/Private School (CF/P) 7. ZONING: Planned Community (P-C) 8. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED (i.e., permits, financing approval or participation agreements): N/A 9. PROJECT DESCRIPTION/ ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES: The project consists of an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the Pacific Ridge School for a Phased Campus Master Plan and Master Plan Amendment to allow the private school to satisfy the remaining Community Facilities requirement for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The 12.8 acre site is bordered by RV parking to the north, steep slopes and open space to the west, a residential development to the south, and El Fuerte Street to the east. The northern 7.3 acres of the site is currently used by the Pacific Ridge School. The school is in process of acquiring the 5.5 acre parcel immediately south of the school. The adjacent parcel was previously graded with the Bressi Ranch Master Tentative Map and is currently vacant. Access to the project site is via two driveway entrances on El Fuerte Street. The areas of the site proposed for development are relatively level. Previously graded and landscaped slopes are located on the east and south sides of the site, resulting in an approximate 16 to 30 foot grade differential along the east side of the site (north to south, respectively along El Fuerte) and an approximately 23 foot tall slope from the existing grade down to the adjacent residential development located south of the site. Grading for the proposed development would result in cut and fill depths of 5 feet or less to achieve a level area for the sports field (south end of site), grading for the building pads, and some grading into the HOA maintained landscaped slope on the west side of the site. Grading would not encroach into the open space preserve area on the west. MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Currently, the school consists of four modular buildings containing classrooms and administration uses (23,760 sf), a 3,000 sf covered courtyard/dining area, a 60,000 sf soccer/lacrosse field, tennis court and basketball/volleyball court with full-court sunshade, student garden area, 97-space parking lot, and associated landscape and site improvements. The permanent campus facilities and campus expansion will ultimately include construction of a new high school building, administration building, support buildings, a middle school building, "black box" and theater building, gym-auditorium, a new 2-story gym support building, and a new sports field in the southern portion of the site. The development will also include two lunch pavilions in the northwest portion of the site and associated improvements such as driveways, parking areas, concrete flatwork, underground utilities, and landscaping. Phase I of the Campus Master Plan includes maintaining the four existing modular buildings, relocating the existing sports field at the north end of the site to the southern portion of the site, and providing nine new temporary modular buildings (12,960 sf). The new modular buildings would provide temporary space for increased student enrollment, from 104 to 330 students, while construction of the permanent high school building is in progress. The Phase I plans include construction of a 32,100 sf, two-story high school building for occupancy in 2010. Additionally, plans for a 28,100 sf gymnasium are included. The gym would be constructed when funding sources are available. Surface parking would be expanded from 97 to 105 spaces. Phase II focuses on the opening of the high school building and removal of the nine temporary modular buildings. Student enrollment would increase from about 330 to 435 students. The four modular buildings would remain active, housing the middle school. Surface parking would be expanded from 105 to 128 spaces. The Campus Master Plan evaluates the adequacy of the site for the future phases, with the student population expected to increase from 435 to 540 students. The four modular buildings would continue to be actively utilized until the final construction phases are completed, which is anticipated to be 2020. The future phases include a 15,636 sf administration building, 17,680 sf middle school, 13,534 multi-purpose building, and a 13,671 sf arts building. Plans for these structures would be subject to future discretionary action by the City of Carlsbad Planning Commission. The subject site is included within the area analyzed under the certified Program EIR for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (EIR 98-04). Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The summary of environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact," or "Potentially Significant Impact Unless Mitigation Incorporated" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Agricultural Resources Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources D Geology/Soils d Hazards/Hazardous Materials n Hydrology/Water Quality n Land Use and Planning n Mineral Resources n Mandatory Findings of Significance Kl Noise d Population and Housing D Public Services CH Recreation d Transportation/Circulation n Utilities & Service Systems Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion DETERMINATION. (To be completed by the Lead Agency) D I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [X] 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. Q I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D 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. n 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. A**3^uls\ Signature1 / Date Planning Director's Signature Date Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS STATE CEQA GUIDELINES, Chapter 3, Article 5, Section 15063 requires that the City conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) to determine if a project may have a significant effect on the environment. The Environmental Impact Assessment appears in the following pages in the form of a checklist. This checklist identifies any physical, biological and human factors that might be impacted by the proposed project and provides the City with information to use as the basis for deciding whether to prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Negative Declaration, or to rely on a previously approved EIR or Negative Declaration. • A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by an information source cited in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved. A "No Impact" answer should be explained when there is no source document to refer to, or it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards. • "Less Than Significant Impact" applies where there is supporting evidence that the potential impact is not significantly adverse, and the impact does not exceed adopted general standards and policies. • "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The developer must agree to the mitigation, and the City must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. • "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significantly adverse. • Based on an "ElA-lnitial Study", if a proposed project could have a potentially significant adverse effect on the environment, but all potentially significant adverse effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or Mitigated Negative Declaration, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, and none of the circumstances requiring a supplement to or supplemental EIR are present and all the mitigation measures required by the prior environmental document have been incorporated into this project, then no additional environmental document is required. • When "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked the project is not necessarily required to prepare an EIR if the significant adverse effect has been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and the effect will be mitigated, or a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" has been made pursuant to that earlier EIR. • A Negative Declaration may be prepared if the City perceives no substantial evidence that the project or any of its aspects may cause a significant adverse effect on the environment. • If there are one or more potentially significant adverse effects, the City may avoid Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion 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. • An EIR must be prepared if "Potentially Significant Impact" is checked, and including but not limited to the following circumstances: (1) the potentially significant adverse effect has not been discussed or mitigated in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and the developer does not agree to mitigation measures that reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; (2) a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" for the significant adverse impact has not been made pursuant to an earlier EIR; (3) proposed mitigation measures do not reduce the adverse impact to less than significant; or (4) through the ElA-lnitial Study analysis it is not possible to determine the level of significance for a potentially adverse effect, or determine the effectiveness of a mitigation measure in reducing a potentially significant effect to below a level of significance. A discussion of potential impacts and the proposed mitigation measures appears after each related set of questions. Particular attention should be given to discussing mitigation for impacts, which would otherwise be determined significant. Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP 06-11 (A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion 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? Potentially Significant Impact n Potentially Significant Less Unless Than Mitigation Significant No Incorporated Impact Impact n n n n n n n D a-d) No Impact. The proposed expansion of the private school would have no more aesthetic impact than if the site was developed with a traditional community facility use such as a church and daycare. The Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR 98-04) for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan (BRMP) identified no scenic views through the site. Additionally, there are no State Scenic highways within or adjacent to the site. The project complies with the applicable development and design standards of the Carlsbad Municipal Code (CMC) and the BRMP. Therefore, impacts to the existing visual character or quality of the site will be no greater than those already anticipated by EIR 98-04. Mitigation measures regarding landform alteration were previously incorporated into the project with the mass grading. The sports field will not be lit and standard conditions of approval require shielding of all exterior light fixtures so that light does not spill onto adjacent properties. No additional impact assessed. AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES - (In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model-1997 prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland.) Would the project: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact D D D a-c) No Impact. The project site has been previously graded and is not farmland, nor is the land zoned for agricultural use. No mitigation measures were contained in EIR 98-04 for agricultural resources and no additional impact assessed. AIR QUALITY - (Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.) Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D n D D Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impactmd) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a Q Q D Kl substantial number of people? a) No Impact. The project site is located in the San Diego Air Basin which is a state non- attainment area for ozone (O3) and for participate matter less than or equal to 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The periodic violations of national Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), particularly for ozone in inland foothill areas, requires that a plan be developed outlining the pollution controls that will be undertaken to improve air quality. In San Diego County, this attainment planning process is embodied in the Regional Air Quality Strategies (RAQS) developed jointly by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). A Plan to meet the federal standard for ozone was developed in 1994 during the process of updating the 1991 state-mandated plan. This local plan was combined with plans from all other California non-attainment areas having serious ozone problems and used to create the California State Implementation Plan (SIP). The SIP was adopted by the Air Resources Board (ARE) 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 and/or RAQS through the land use and growth assumptions that are incorporated into the air quality planning document. These growth assumptions are based on each city's and the County's general plan. If a proposed project is consistent with its applicable General Plan, then the project presumably has been anticipated with the regional air quality planning process. Such consistency would ensure that the project would not have an adverse regional air quality impact. The proposed project would result in a reduction of 255 ADT, with approximately 31 fewer trips during the a.m. peak hour and approximately 35 fewer trips during the p.m. peak hour compared to a community facility use consisting of a church and daycare. The future development will implement pollution controls identified in the RAQS including bike facilities and student busing. The project is therefore consistent with the regional air quality plan and will in no way conflict or obstruct implementation of the regional plan. b) Less Than Significant Impact. The closest air quality monitoring station to the project site is at Camp Pendleton. Data available for this monitoring site from 2000 through December 2004 indicate that the most recent air quality violations recorded were for the state one hour standard for ozone (a total of 10 days during the 5-year period). No other violations of any air quality standards have been recorded during the 5-year time period. Long-term emissions associated with travel to and from the project will be minimal. Although air pollutant emissions would be associated with a future project, developed consistent with this land use change they would neither result in the violation of any air quality standard (comprising only an incremental contribution to overall air basin quality readings), nor contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation. Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion c) Less Than Significant Impact. The air basin is currently in a state non-attainment zone for ozone and suspended fine particulates. Future projects 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 development proposal would be minimal. Given the limited emissions potentially associated with a proposed future project, air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the proposed project is implemented. According to the CEQA Guidelines Section 15130(a)(4), the proposed project's contribution to the cumulative impact is considered de minimus. Any impact is assessed as less than significant. d) No Impact. The impacts related to the development of the proposed private school would be no greater than those for a community facility use allowed by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. Development impacts were analyzed in EIR 98-04. The project is conditioned to incorporate any applicable mitigation measures required by EIR 98-04. No additional impact assessed. e) No Impact. The impacts related to the development of the proposed private school would be no greater than those for a community facility use allowed by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. Development impacts were analyzed in EIR 98-04. The project is conditioned to incorporate any applicable mitigation measures required by EIR 98-04. No additional impact assessed. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian, aquatic or wetland habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or by California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including but not limited to marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 10 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or D D D £3 ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Q H D D Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? a-e) No Impact. The biological impacts related to the development of the proposed private school would be no greater than those for a community facility use allowed by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. Development impacts were analyzed in EIR 98-04 and mitigation measures were included to reduce biological impacts to a less than significant level. The site has been previously graded and is adjacent to occupied Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub (DCSS) habitat. No additional direct impacts are anticipated with the development proposal. f) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The City's Habitat Management Plan (HMP) includes adjacency standards to prevent negative effects occurring between areas proposed for development and preservation. An open space preserve area is located west of the subject site. Mitigation measures to reduce edge effects are included in the MMRP for EIR 98-04 and include an existing 60-foot wide fuel modification zone on the west side of the property and erosion control is required in association with any grading for the project site. Mitigation measures are required for Fencing, Signs and Lighting to ensure that habitat preserve areas are not impacted by artificial lighting or intrusions by humans and domestic animals. The project is required to incorporate signage and fencing adjacent to habitat areas and standard conditions of approval prohibit light from spilling onto adjacent properties. Landscape Restrictions and Predator and Exotic Species Control will be reviewed in conjunction with the conceptual and final landscape plans, and plans will be reviewed to ensure that no invasive or exotic plant species will be introduced adjacent to the open space preserve areas. Irrigation runoff will not affect the preserve area because the project site is located downhill from the native habitat areas. Due to the fact that the site is adjacent to occupied DCSS, a mitigation measure is included to ensure that grading and construction noise will be avoided during the gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1-August 15). If grading or other construction activities would occur within 300 feet of nesting habitat during the breeding season, the condition can be waived by the City of Carlsbad upon completion of a USFWS protocol survey within 10 days prior to start of work. If there are no gnatcatchers present in this area, development shall be allowed to proceed; however, if any gnatcatchers are observed within this area, one of the following three measures shall be applied: construction shall (1) be postponed until all nesting (or nesting/breeding behavior) has ceased or until after August 15; (2) a temporary noise barrier 11 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion shall be constructed outside of protected open space to ensure that noise levels are reduced to below 60 dB hourly average at the edge of the nesting habitat; or (3) the use of construction equipment shall be scheduled to keep noise levels below 60 dB hourly at the edge of the nesting habitat in lieu of or in concert with a noise barrier. If work is allowed to proceed, then the project shall be monitored by a qualified biologist and acoustician during construction activities to ensure no hourly noise impact over 60 dB hourly average occurs at the edge of the occupied habitat. V.CULTURAL RESOURCES project: - Would the a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique pale- ontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D a-d) No Impact. There are no structures or resources of historical significance on or adjacent to the site. The project site and vicinity has been both mass and fine graded in accordance with the certified Program EIR 98-04 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) which included a mitigation measure requiring data recovery of archeological resources. A paleontological monitor was present during the previously approved mass grading of the site. The grading included excavation depths of up to 45 feet and fill depths of approximately 95 feet. The project will not result in cutting of previously undisturbed sediments, and no additional monitoring is required. No additional impact assessed. 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: Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 12 Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP 06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? iv. Landslides? b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soils, as defined in Section 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact D D D D D D D De) Have soils incapable of adequately Q D supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a-e) No Impact. Mass grading of the site was performed between September 2003 and August 2004 in accordance with the certified Program EIR 98-04 MMRP. A Geotechnical Update Study was prepared (Geotechnical Update Study for Pacific Ridge School. Leighton and Associates, Inc., July 10, 2008) for the permanent campus facilities and campus expansion to evaluate existing as-graded geotechnical conditions present at the site and to provide preliminary geotechnical conclusions and recommendations relative to the proposed development. The report concludes that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint, provided that the conclusions and recommendations of the report are incorporated into the project plans and specifications. Standard conditions of approval require incorporation of the Geotechnical Engineer's recommendations. No additional impact assessed. 13 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS - Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or environment? e) For a project within an airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D D D D D D D D D 14 Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion a-h) No Impact. The project consists of an expansion of the existing private school. The school does not contain nor is it adjacent to any hazardous materials. The site was previously graded in accordance with the MMRP for EIR 98-04. The site is not located within the Palomar Airport Flight Activity Zone, and the existing and proposed use of the site would not interfere with emergency response or evacuation plans. The project is located outside of the 60 CNEL noise contour for Palomar Airport and is consistent with the Noise/Land Use Compatibility Matrix of the Palomar Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The site is adjacent to an open space preserve area and the required 60-foot fuel modification zone has been established and is maintained by the Bressi Ranch Master HOA. No additional impact assessed. VIM. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY - Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ground water recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local ground water table level (i.e., the production rate of pre- existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the flow rate or amount (volume) of surface runoff in a manner, which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D n D D D D 15 Rev. 12/13/07 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood delineation map? h) Place within 100-year flood hazard area structures, which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? k) Increase erosion (sediment) into receiving surface waters. I) Increase pollutant discharges (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens, petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, nutrients, oxygen- demanding substances and trash) into receiving surface waters or other alteration of receiving surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? m) Change receiving water quality (marine, fresh or wetland waters) during or following construction? n) Increase any pollutant to an already impaired water body as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list? o) Increase impervious associated runoff? surfaces and p) Impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat? q) Result in the exceedance of applicable surface or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses? MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significa nt Impact D No Impact D D D D D D D D D D n D n n a-q) No Impact. The impacts related to the development of the proposed private school would be no greater than those for a community facility use allowed by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. 16 Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Development impacts were analyzed in EIR 98-04 and the project is required to comply with the applicable mitigation measures to reduce water quality and hydrology impacts to a less than significant level. Technical studies prepared for the proposed development include the Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study for Pacific Ridge School. Hofman Planning & Engineering, September 22, 2008 and the Storm Water Management Plan for Pacific Ridge School. Hofman Planning & Engineering, September 22, 2008. The recommendations included in the technical reports will be included as standard conditions of approval for the development proposal. No additional impact assessed. VIII.LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a) Physically divide community? an established Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact 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? D D D a-c) No Impact. The expansion of the private school is an allowed use within the Community Facility/Private School (CF/P) General Plan Land Use designation of the site. The Master Plan amendment would allow the private school to fulfill the remaining CF requirement of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. Through this Master Plan Amendment, the Bressi Ranch community facility requirements are proposed to be satisfied through shared facility use of the private school facilities by social clubs, youth organizations, civic associations, and charitable service organizations. The project includes a Community Facilities Marketing Plan and Facilities Availability Schedule to satisfy this requirement. The project would have no more impact on the surrounding land uses than would a CF use as allowed by the Master Plan and as analyzed in EIR 98-04. The development proposal does not physically divide an established community. The previously graded project site is compatible with the City of Carlsbad Habitat Management Plan. No impacts were identified in EIR 98-04 and no additional impact is assessed. 17 Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D X. MINERAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally D D D £3 important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. Based on the 1994 Final Master Environmental Impact Report for the City of Carlsbad General Plan Update there is no indication that the subject property contains any known mineral resources that would be of future value to the region or the residents of the State. No impact assessed. XI. NOISE - Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbourne vibration or groundbourne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D n D 18 Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Potentially Potentially Less Than No ImpactSignificant Impact D Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Significant Impact f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a and c) Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Noise impacts were analyzed in EIR 98-04 and a mitigation measure was included requiring a site-specific acoustical analysis for each planning area development proposal with recommendations to reduce noise impacts to a less than significant level. The Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed Pacific Ridge School Expansion, Weiland Acoustics, Inc., July 3, 2008, indicates that a potentially significant noise impact could occur within the future theater building due to traffic noise from El Fuerte Street and in other school buildings depending on the final architectural design. A significant impact may also occur at the usable exterior area of the campus near El Fuerte Street. Finally, the sports activities on the proposed field could expose residential properties to the south to noise levels exceeding the City of Carlsbad's 65 dBA CNEL exterior noise level and 45 dBA CNEL interior noise level. Mitigation measures to reduce the potentially significant noise impacts to a less than significant level include: 1) construction of a 6 foot tall sound barrier at the south end of the field, 2) constructing the school buildings to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL with all doors and windows closed, and 3) ensuring that all usable outdoor areas are located in areas with an exterior CNEL of 65 dBA or less. Specific construction techniques and materials will be specified once construction and mechanical design plans have been prepared and reviewed by a qualified acoustical professional. b, d, e, and f) No Impact. The impacts related to the development of the proposed private school would be no greater than those for a community facility use such as a church and daycare as allowed by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan, and will not generate any excessive groundbourne vibration or noise levels. The project would not result in a more substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity than was previously analyzed by EIR 98-04. The project will not result in the exposure of persons to significant noise levels as a result of activities at McClellan-Palomar Airport, and there is no private airstrip in the vicinity of the project. No additional impact assessed. 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)? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact 19 Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion 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? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant Impact D No Impact D a-c) No Impact. The project consists of the expansion of an existing private school onto a previously graded site that is designated for Community Facility and Private School uses. The project will not displace any existing housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing. The project will not displace any people. No impact assessed. 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? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D a) No Impact. The proposed private school and community facility use are two of the possible land uses for Planning Area 13 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. EIR 98-04 and the Zone 17 Local Facilities Management Plan evaluated the projected need for public services with the build-out of Bressi Ranch. There will be no potential impacts beyond those identified in EIR 98- 04. All associated public service impacts will be mitigated through project conditions of approval. No additional impact assessed. 20 Rev. 12/13/07 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? 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? MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D a-b) No Impact. The proposed private school and community facility use are two of the possible land uses for Planning Area 13 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. EIR 98-04 and the Zone 17 Local Facilities Management Plan evaluated the need for recreational facilities with the build-out of Bressi Ranch. There will be no potential impacts beyond those identified in EIR 98-04. Additionally, the school campus includes over 2 acres of sports fields and courts for recreational use. No mitigation measures are applicable to the project site. No additional impact assessed. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC - Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significa nt Impact No Impact D D D 21 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Result in insufficient parking capacity? g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turn-outs, bicycle racks)? Potentially Significant Impact D D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D D Less Than Significant Impact No Impact D D D a) No Impact. According to the Pacific Ridge School - Revised Traffic Analysis Update Letter. RBF Consulting, September 19, 2008, the proposed expansion of the private school would result in a reduction of 255 Average Daily Trips (ADT) with 31 fewer trips during the a.m. peak hour and 35 fewer trips during the p.m. peak hour as compared with development of a more traditional community facility use such as a daycare and church. No additional impact assessed. b) No impact. The traffic impacts related to the development of the proposed private school would be no greater than those for a community facility use such as a church and daycare allowed by the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. Traffic impacts were analyzed in EIR 98-04 and mitigation measures were included to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. The project is conditioned to incorporate any applicable mitigation measures required by EIR 98-04. No additional impact assessed. c) No Impact. The proposed project will not affect air traffic patterns or location. No impact assessed. d) No Impact. All project circulation improvements will be designed and constructed to City standards; and, therefore, would not result in design hazards. The south school driveway will be converted to an exit only driveway with two exit lanes consisting of one left-turn lane and one right-turn lane. One-way pavement arrows will be placed along the west drive aisle adjacent to the drop-off/pick-up zone to reinforce the one-way southbound circulation route through the campus. The proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan and zoning. Therefore, it would not increase hazards due to an incompatible use. No impact assessed. e) No Impact. The proposed project has been designed to satisfy the emergency requirements of the Fire and Police Departments. No impact assessed. f) No Impact. The project will comply with the City's parking requirements to ensure an adequate parking supply. No impact assessed. g) No Impact. Two private buses currently transport between 70 and 80 students (approximately 35% of enrollment) daily to and from the school. The school plans to provide one additional bus per year as enrollment increases with at least four buses operating upon the 22 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion full enrollment of 540 students. Additionally, some students currently ride bikes to school, impact assessed. No XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICES SYSTEMS - Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Potentially Significant Impact Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D D D D D D D D D a-g) No Impact. The proposed private school and community facility use are two of the possible land uses for Planning Area 13 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. EIR 98-04 and the Zone 17 Local Facilities Management Plan evaluated the utility and service system needs with the build- out of Bressi Ranch. There will be no potential impacts beyond those identified in EIR 98-04. The project is conditioned to incorporate any applicable mitigation measures required by EIR 98-04. No additional impact assessed. 23 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects?) c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause the substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Potentially Significant Impact D Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated D Less Than Significant No Impact Impact D IEI D D a-c) No Impact. The proposed private school and community facility use are two of the possible land uses for Planning Area 13 of the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. The potential to degrade the quality of the environment will not be greater than already anticipated and potential impacts that are cumulatively considerable have been addressed by the certified EIR (EIR 98-04) for the Bressi Ranch Master Plan. With incorporation of the recommended mitigation measures and MMRP for EIR 98-04, the project would not result in environmental effects that would degrade the quality of the environment. The project does not have the potential to 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. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) projects regional growth for the greater San Diego area and local general plan land use policies are incorporated into SANDAG projections. Based upon those projections, region-wide standards, including storm water quality control, air quality standards, habitat conservation, congestion management standards, etc., are established to reduce the cumulative impacts of development in the region. All of the City's development standards and regulations are consistent with the region wide standards. The City's standards and regulations, including grading standards, water quality and drainage standards, traffic standards, habitat and cultural resource protection regulations, and public 24 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion facility standards ensure that development within the City will not result in an impact that is cumulatively considerable. 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. The project would contribute to a cumulatively considerable potential net increase in emissions throughout the air basin. However, the air quality would be essentially the same whether or not the development is implemented. A statement of overriding considerations for Air Quality impacts resulting from the Bressi Ranch Master plan was adopted for EIR 98-04. 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 had 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 impacts from the project to the regional circulation system are less than significant. With regard to any other potential impacts associated with the project, City standards and regulations will ensure that future development of the site will not result in any significant cumulatively considerable impacts. Based upon the fact that future development within the Bressi Ranch Master Plan area will comply with City standards, the project will not result in any direct or indirect substantial adverse environmental effects on human beings. XVIII. EARLIER ANALYSES Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following on attached sheets: a) Earlier analyses used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures, which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions for the project. 25 Rev. 12/13/07 MP178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion 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. Carlsbad General Plan. City of Carlsbad Planning Department, dated March 1994. 3. City of Carlsbad Municipal Code. Title 21 Zoning, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, as updated. 4. Habitat Management Plan for Natural Communities in the City of Carlsbad, City of Carlsbad Planning Department, final approval dated November 2004. 5. Bressi Ranch Master Plan MP 178 Certified Program EIR (EIR 98-04), Cotton Bridges Associates, certified July 9, 2002. 6. Geotechnical Update Study for Pacific Ridge School, Leighton and Associates, Inc., July 10,2008. 7. Year 2008 Coastal California Gnatcatcher Protocol Survey Report for the Pacific Ridge School Project, Helix Environmental Planning, Inc., September 9, 2008. 8. Preliminary Hydrology and Hydraulic Study for Pacific Ridge School, Hofman Planning & Engineering, September 22, 2008. 9. Storm Water Management Plan for Pacific Ridge School. Hofman Planning & Engineering, September 22, 2008. 10. Pacific Ridge School - Revised Traffic Analysis Update Letter, RBF Consulting, September 19, 2008. 11. Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed Pacific Ridge School Expansion. Weiland Acoustics, Inc., July 3, 2008. 26 Rev. 12/13/07 MP 178(G)/CUP06-11(A) Pacific Ridge School Expansion LIST OF MITIGATING MEASURES To mitigate potentially significant project impacts, the following mitigation measures shall be applied to the development of the proposed project: 1. Construction noise that could affect the activity of the coastal California gnatcatcher associated with the off-site sensitive habitat shall be avoided. In order to ensure compliance, grading or other construction activities that could affect the species shall be avoided during the gnatcatcher breeding season (March 1 to August 15). If grading or other construction activities would occur within 300 feet of nesting habitat during the breeding season, the condition can be waived by the City of Carlsbad upon completion of a USFWS protocol survey within 10 days prior to start of work. If there are no gnatcatchers present in this area, development shall be allowed to proceed; however, if any gnatcatchers are observed within this area, one of the following three measures shall be applied: construction shall (1) be postponed until all nesting (or nesting/breeding behavior) has ceased or until after August 15; (2) a temporary noise barrier shall be constructed outside of protected open space to ensure that noise levels are reduced to below 60 dB hourly average at the edge of the nesting habitat; or (3) the use of construction equipment shall be scheduled to keep noise levels below 60 dB hourly at the edge of the nesting habitat in lieu of or in concert with a noise barrier. If work is allowed to proceed, then the project shall be monitored by a qualified biologist and acoustician during construction activities to ensure no hourly noise impact over 60 dB hourly average occurs at the edge of the occupied habitat. 2. The Developer shall incorporate the recommendations included in the Environmental Noise Study for the Proposed Pacific Ridge School Expansion, Weiland Acoustics, Inc., July 3, 2008, including, but not limited to: 1) construct a 6 foot high sound barrier along the south end of the sports field; 2) construct school buildings to achieve an interior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL with all doors and windows closed, and 3) ensure that all usable outdoor areas are located in areas with an exterior CNEL of 65 dBA or less. A qualified acoustical professional shall certify that noise from school activities and/or mechanical systems comply with the recommendations in the Environmental Noise Study. 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. Date/ ' Signa*Q?e 27 Rev. 12/13/07 0 "m >>m ro -^ro -c -Q •JJ?** = C <U OT"S *5 o *- iCDO QL O ^iCD CO CL ^ o o <*. *^ T3 O 0 •— ** "E <U "St S: 00 D Q. .£ro0^ 0 "-o E -c0 *- .-K '2* 0 ro •£ .55 D) 0 £f EE 0 •S-5'5 75 ro 0 §.£ c? <".« 2 .. V 'l— ° £ o CO w Z to: 5 o «1 1 l ^ "^" 'r^ U ^>\ ^_ ~O ^- / "\ ~") O •— (i)z o w ^ ^x "O "'""'ill <u c w— ' £ ro :=. EXPANSION1 SCHOOLJU CD Q<r o U- o< Q. ili <CN Z r" -i-* .i= 0) T3 1 E ""ro o -o*- O mO i- D-< CJr 0O . cO m C C o <UC Q.0 ro c:"- O Cssi^w .IS3 ro CDs ^^-- u •- .t; co</)•*-& Om o > i- 0 _ T3 CN E S>.S> c c 0 Q-.2 o- EtS*= w O 0)ro soco !SJ*_ ro -Q o - &!8 «c E co a; 0 — -C 0 E ro 0 isc c ^ o 0 0 w « UJ 'USS !< S o E o Q TO> S-R1 C C .Q P•5 i- i -i ® 'ts t0 O > 0 T3 0>0"- ill O =5 « .±± co__. f*s v *4— C"Q) Tj QL •«- ~ E 3Z0) O Q. Q, c „, °°CTJ Q^ CL _c~ CD •— —Q_ Q. < i- ^ £ in J2 ro E(D LJ— c.0",^ (D •£: **~ Q)'oj E Q. E c (/) 5 roOD. CO ^— •D) CC*i\UJ 'C Co £^-' TZc ro ° S^ oi_i D) I a 1^o 2 itigation MeasuS o D) ^'cc • CU 0 'o' Q_ ~^~i *»* ._ ^* jx (^J .*ti n) ^^ O **— ^ C fli (D r^" r 'i M O ^ ~^ l||tJPip|jl;|l|ifl|||lf 1 1 i t W i |i§ I ! |1 1 tf II i 1 1 IIa °> » | « g> §> s | » « s - =• 1 1 o | » ° | _ g - o Ili!lplJ!l!i?!i!isl!§Iif Jill ll III ill till Ills islli T~ 0> 'o T3 05! £ 0) O 1 I & 0)E ro c c:0) t: -S g« -Sro ro-c ena :•« 5 E S .E ^ 73 §> IIITO "O O S c 3E ra ro llf c ^ « ~ = •§ •2*0 S: P ro Q- |! 2 -^ls< EE « " <u ^II & .55 ro < o5 a) Q> K o: ra ^ .3 1 •C cro c °- 1ro o0) 0.E w 0 £ S w"O c E M i- Q. ? § B § t/) Sc oa »to v)£ g>. ^o </>c ro0) 0) s? I'^ o -5- »j ro2 C D)E 03 S<»| 3 .| gi E -b I g a 3 i |li-I i?£ C II C || C1 ° • c ,. "u_ -•-^ O W^ts&l SH= .9>,Q ro . Qlrollrl liiC II 0 ™ C— 0) ~ ^5Q Q. c: ^ os^ tr* o 'i c~ UJHS SW CN 00) 05 Q_ roE0) c.g •§! jt 0>I— t-0) t^ 03"o. E Is5 _ro -C CO D)"£ C 0)•c E2 € 1 I^ Q D)C 'C Q)2 °i §£" ^Mitigation Measuret of or in concert with a noise barrier. If work isallowed to proceed, then the project shall bemonitored by a qualified biologist and acousticianduring construction activities to ensure no hourlynoise impact over 60 dB hourly average occurs atthe edge of the occupied habitat.to CD D) D)C C 'C T3c — — m "rt Q) 'o" (X The Developer shall incorporate therecommendations included in the Environmentalc\i Noise Studv for the Proposed Pacific Ridqe SchoolExpansion, Weiland Acoustics, Inc., July 3, 2008,including, but not limited to: 1) construct a 6 foothigh sound barrier along the south end of the sportsfield; 2) construct school buildings to achieve aninterior noise level of 45 dBA CNEL with all doorsand windows closed, and 3) ensure that all usableoutdoor areas are located in areas with an exteriorCNEL of 65 dBA or less. A qualified acousticalprofessional shall certify that noise from schoolactivities and/or mechanical systems comply withthe recommendations in the Environmental NoiseStudy.•eCOQ. co OQ. i?c O) E osisfll§>°iS"l <uQ.Q. QDC ^- ..s. as g cz encjo CL COI enCD roD)•e I* I1> T3U,sC T3n) CD a .E E -BII 1 W