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